Loading ITAT cases…
151 orders · Page 1 of 4
The tribunal, following several High Court judgments (including Kankanala Ravindra Reddy) and its own previous decisions, held that the reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were invalid due to procedural non-compliance with the faceless assessment scheme. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed. The tribunal granted liberty to the parties to revive the appeal if the Supreme Court's decision on similar pending matters (e.g., Hexaware Technology Ltd.) necessitates a modification of this order. Other grounds on the merits of additions were not adjudicated and kept open.
The Tribunal found that additions made under Section 50C in the absence of incriminating material during search proceedings are not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that a surrender of Rs. 12 crores might not be assessable in the current year.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2016-17 was barred by limitation, as it was issued beyond the surviving period calculated as per Supreme Court judgments. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the documentary evidence filed by the assessee and therefore remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee offered income under two heads, but the AO considered only one. The Tribunal held that if income offered under the 'real estate business activity' head is considered, the difference is explained. Therefore, the additions sustained by the lower authorities were deleted.
The Tribunal held that unexplained credits in partners' capital accounts should be assessed in the hands of the partners, not the firm. The addition made by the AO in the hands of the firm was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the section claimed by the assessee (10(23C)(vi)) and the section of approval granted by the CIT(E) (10(23C)(ii)), and the pending rectification application by the assessee before the CIT(E). The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-verification of the correct registration/approval details, pending the assessee pursuing the rectification application with the CIT(E).
The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost of Rs. 2000/-. Subsequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order, holding that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid due to improper approval from the competent authority as per Section 151 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid due to the lack of valid approval/sanction under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the notice and the consequential order under Section 147 were quashed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the assessment order passed by the AO. The Tribunal held that the assessment order, issued consequent to a notice under Section 148 by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after 29.03.2022, was without jurisdiction and unsustainable. This decision relied on rulings from the Hon'ble Telangana High Court, which established that JAOs lack the power to issue Section 148 notices post-introduction of the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Tribunal noted that while the issue is pending before the Supreme Court, the High Court's decision is binding.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a 'reasonable and sufficient cause' for the delay, attributing it to unfamiliarity with the Income Tax Departmental portal. Regarding the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO), the Tribunal upheld them. For long-term capital gains, the Tribunal found no error in the AO's reasoning to assess Rs. 1,80,991/- based on the difference between the sale consideration and the Fair Market Value as per Section 50C, as the assessee failed to appear and explain the case with relevant evidence. Similarly, the additions of Rs. 2,06,695/- towards deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A were upheld because the assessee did not furnish documentary evidence. The addition of Rs. 483/- towards interest income was also upheld, as the assessee had earned this interest from a savings bank account and had not offered it to tax. The Tribunal found no error in the AO's assessment of this income under 'income from other sources'. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned both the 325-day delay in filing the appeal before it and the 13-day delay before the CIT(A), acknowledging the assessee's family tragedies and health issues. It found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merits and the AO passed an ex-parte order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing reconsideration of income estimation in light of precedents for sub-contractors and affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT condoned the 482-day delay in filing the appeal, finding that the CIT(A) failed to serve notices properly at the postal address specifically opted by the assessee in 'Form 35'. It was held that service via email, despite an email ID being provided for form-filing, was invalid when physical service was requested. The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the legal ground challenging the validity of the search and consequent assessment proceedings became academic as the assessee received relief on merit regarding the additions made for subcontract expenditure. Therefore, the legal ground was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed on this legal issue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing confirmations, bank details, PAN, and TDS details. The non-response of the payee did not, by itself, make the expenditure bogus. The revenue failed to bring irrefutable material to disprove the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that a return filed under Section 153A does not override the requirement of filing the original return under Section 139(1) on or before the due date to claim carry-forward of losses. The decision of the Supreme Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Wipro Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal condoned the minor three-day delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it held that the subcontract payment was a genuine business expenditure allowable under Section 37(1), as the identity of the payee, genuineness of the payment (via banking channels, TDS deducted, ITR filed by subcontractor), and business purpose were established. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 63,00,000/- for money-lending business and the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for unexplained credit require further verification. The matters were remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication with specific directions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's medical condition. The appeals were then admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to consider the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that once an addition is sustained under Section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE, the penalty under Section 271AAC becomes mandatory and is consequential. The assessee failed to demonstrate the applicability of any exclusionary clause under Section 271AAC(2) or provide a reasonable cause for non-levy, despite having disclosed the income during the search.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's medical condition. The appeals were then admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation as it was passed after the extended period prescribed under Section 153(4) of the Act, following the judgments of the Madras and Bombay High Courts.
For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the issue back to the A.O./CPC for verification of the Section 10(38) exemption claim, directing them to consider all evidence including STT payment. For AY 2008-09, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous since the A.O./CPC had already granted the exemption in consequential assessment proceedings following a previous CIT(A) remand.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be genuine and bona fide, supported by medical evidence. The Tribunal applied a liberal approach as laid down by the Supreme Court, considering that a meritorious case should not be dismissed on technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 154 by attempting to re-adjudicate the matter of limitation, which was a substantive issue. The rectification order was quashed as it went beyond correcting a patent error.
The Tribunal condoned the 151-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the AO's rejection of audited books was not justified as it lacked specific defects and was based on generalized observations. The estimation of net profit at an ad hoc rate of 12.5% of gross turnover was found to be arbitrary and without comparable cases or supporting data. The Tribunal vacated the addition.
The Tribunal held that the appeal against the rectification order, applying Section 115BBE, is intrinsically linked to the main appeal challenging the underlying additions under Sections 68 and 69. It ruled that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the rectification appeal without considering the pending main appeal on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for reconsideration of both appeals together.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be genuine and bona fide, supported by medical evidence. The Tribunal applied a liberal approach as laid down by the Supreme Court, considering that a meritorious case should not be dismissed on technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the legal ground challenging the validity of the search and consequent assessment proceedings became academic as the assessee received relief on merit regarding the additions made for subcontract expenditure. Therefore, the legal ground was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim was based on a bona fide belief and a reasonable understanding of the law, and all material facts were disclosed. Therefore, it did not constitute under-reporting of income for penalty purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not put to valid notice and remained unaware of the pendency and disposal of his appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without ensuring proper service of notices at the address opted by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals)'s order was ex-parte and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice, depriving the assessee of an opportunity to prosecute his case. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 482 days, finding a reasonable cause demonstrated by the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication, with a direction to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly left undecided the merits of the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's medical condition. The appeals were then admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the limitation period as per Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The ITAT held that the proceedings under Section 153C were validly initiated as the AO had recorded satisfaction linking the seized documents to the assessee. The addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment in the flat was restricted to Rs. 10,00,000/-, as evidence from seized papers only supported this amount, deleting the balance. The addition of Rs. 8,231/- for pension income difference was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed on this legal issue.
The Tribunal considered various grounds including transfer pricing, depreciation, and investment allowance. It also addressed the issue of limitation for assessment orders, referencing Supreme Court orders and circulars.
The Tribunal held that the legal ground challenging the validity of the search and consequent assessment proceedings became academic as the assessee received relief on merit regarding the additions made for subcontract expenditure. Therefore, the legal ground was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for verification of the assessee's claim regarding the filing of 'Form 10CCBs' for 31 eligible units for the deduction under Section 80IB(11A). The assessee provided digitally signed 'Form 10CCBs' with acknowledgement numbers, supported by an affidavit, indicating compliance. However, the AO's report stated that only 23 forms were available, some unsigned and without acknowledgement numbers. The Tribunal found that the assessee's evidence dislodged the AO's claim, but due to the conflicting reports, a verification by the AO was deemed necessary. If the assessee's claim is found in order, the adverse inferences drawn regarding the deduction will be vacated. The Tribunal allowed Ground of Appeal No. 3 in this regard. Alternative contentions regarding specific units were left open. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 4 were dismissed as not pressed. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the legal ground challenging the validity of the search and consequent assessment proceedings became academic as the assessee received relief on merit regarding the additions made for subcontract expenditure. Therefore, the legal ground was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the legal ground challenging the validity of the search and consequent assessment proceedings became academic as the assessee received relief on merit regarding the additions made for subcontract expenditure. Therefore, the legal ground was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) without following the procedure laid down in the National Faceless Assessment Scheme (NFAC) is not valid and is liable to be quashed. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Kotha Kanthaiah (Writ Petition No.344 of 2025) and a co-ordinate bench decision in ITO Vs. Meghana Enterprises. Since the initiation of proceedings itself was found to be invalid, it vitiated the consequential reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent reassessment order were quashed in favour of the assessee. However, acknowledging that a similar issue is pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal granted liberty to the parties to get the appeal revived if the Supreme Court's judgment necessitates a modification of this order. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that a return filed under Section 153A does not override the requirement of filing the original return under Section 139(1) on or before the due date to claim carry-forward of losses. The decision of the Supreme Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Wipro Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the statutory obligation to furnish audit reports in Form 10CCB for its eligible units. However, due to conflicting reports from the Assessing Officer, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification of the filing of these forms.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation, following precedents from the Madras and Bombay High Courts. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the limitation period as per Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's explanation of professional negligence and the impact of the pandemic. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's addition arbitrary and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI deposited after the statutory due dates is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. This decision followed the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be genuine and bona fide, supported by medical evidence. The Tribunal applied a liberal approach as laid down by the Supreme Court, considering that a meritorious case should not be dismissed on technicalities.
For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the issue back to the A.O./CPC for verification of the Section 10(38) exemption claim, directing them to consider all evidence including STT payment. For AY 2008-09, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous since the A.O./CPC had already granted the exemption in consequential assessment proceedings following a previous CIT(A) remand.