Loading ITAT cases…
151 orders · Page 2 of 4
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 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 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 determined that the document in question (GPA 685/2016) was merely a General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed in favour of the assessee by property owners, not a JDA. Since a GPA does not constitute a transfer of a capital asset under Section 45 and the assessee was not the owner of the property, no capital gains could arise in her hands. Consequently, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal, relying on the Rajasthan High Court's precedent in Mittal Pigments Pvt. Ltd., ruled that the first reassessment order dated 31.03.2022, passed under the old Section 148 regime, became invalid, infructuous, and void ab initio once the Revenue adopted the Ashish Agarwal procedure and passed a subsequent fresh reassessment order for the same assessment year.
The Tribunal held that interest paid under section 201(1A) for delayed TDS deposit is not allowable as business expenditure, following a High Court precedent. The disallowance for bank guarantee charges was deleted, holding that TDS under section 194H was not applicable. The issue regarding disallowance under section 44DA was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for delay (notices sent to a wrong email ID) to be genuine and bona fide, beyond the assessee's control, and condoned both the 397-day and 305-day delays. It restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided by the assessee in the affidavit. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without the assessee receiving hearing notices, which led to the delay. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for all three assessment years. The matters were remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee during the remand proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹62,60,212 as unexplained investment under Section 69 was uncalled for. The Tribunal observed that the payments for the two plots of land were made from the bank account of the assessee's father, Shri Roshan Lal Agarwal, and were duly reflected in his balance sheet. Copies of the bank account and the father's balance sheet were available before the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal found that both lower authorities failed to take correct cognizance of this evidence, which fully explained the investment. Therefore, the addition was deleted, and the appeal on this issue was allowed. Regarding the addition of ₹38,25,073 under Section 56(2)(viib), the Tribunal noted that the asset in question was agricultural land located outside 8 km of municipal limits. Following coordinate bench decisions in 'Mubark Gafur Korabu v. ITO' and 'Prem Chand Jain v. ACIT', the Tribunal held that agricultural land not qualifying as a capital asset falls outside the purview of Section 56(2)(viib). Thus, the addition was deleted, and the appeal on this issue was allowed. The legal issue concerning Section 153A assessment without invoking Section 153C was admitted but not adjudicated as the appeal was allowed on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided by the assessee in the affidavit. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without the assessee receiving hearing notices, which led to the delay. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for all three assessment years. The matters were remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee during the remand proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee submitted ledger accounts and supporting documents, the creditors' ledger accounts lacked proper signatures/verification. Crucially, the bank statements of the creditors evidencing outflow were not produced, and the financial capacity of the loan creditors was not independently verified. The Tribunal noted that the ledger accounts of Dr. G. Vivekananda, which were presented, showed various payments and receipts but did not fully clarify the source of all funds for the investments. Given these deficiencies, the Tribunal concluded that the matter required fresh verification. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The AO was directed to verify signed confirmations of ledger accounts from creditors, corresponding bank statements of creditors, and the assessee's bank statements reflecting receipts and payments. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on suspicion without concrete evidence. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and his status as an ordinary investor.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on suspicion without concrete evidence. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and his status as an ordinary investor.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on suspicion without concrete evidence. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and his status as an ordinary investor.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1.80 crores on account of alleged on-money was not supported by evidence that the assessee actually received the cash. It also held that the addition of Rs. 55,50,000/- under Section 68 was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer's remand report confirmed the genuineness of the loan.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was indeed barred by limitation as per Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. It followed the precedents set by the Madras and Bombay High Courts, stating that Section 144C(13) restricts the time for passing the final order but does not enlarge the overall limitation period under Section 153.
The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the transfer pricing margins computed by the TPO for different assessment years and decided to remand the matter for fresh consideration. Similarly, the issue of depreciation on the building was also set aside for reconsideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the delay was due to bona fide reasons beyond the assessee's control and that the CIT(A) should have adopted a liberal approach and condoned the delay. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on suspicion without concrete evidence. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and his status as an ordinary investor.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid due to the lack of proper sanction from the appropriate authority as mandated by Section 151. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, requiring approval from higher authorities as per Section 151. Since approval was obtained from an authority not specified for such cases, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the filing of Form 10B is mandatory, the denial of exemption solely on this ground without considering the substantive compliance with Sections 11 and 12 was incorrect. The AO also erred in computing income by not allowing expenditures.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been validly served with notices for the hearings before the CIT(A) as the notices were sent via email despite the assessee opting out of email service. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication after validly notifying the assessee.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.8,49,650/- for household expenditure, ruling that such receipts are not income and Section 68 does not apply to normal family support. For the Rs.17,80,000/- addition related to the capital account credit difference, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh verification due to contradictory explanations provided by the assessee at different stages.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for delay (notices sent to a wrong email ID) to be genuine and bona fide, beyond the assessee's control, and condoned both the 397-day and 305-day delays. It restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's medical condition and counsel's issues. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to present additional evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons reasonable and without mala fide intent. It found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without applying its mind or considering documents already filed by the assessee with Form-35. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all relevant records and be granted a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee's explanation for delayed filing was bona fide, citing property disputes and tax ambiguity. Crucially, substantial self-assessment tax was paid before the Section 148 notice. The case fell under Section 270A(6) as the assessee offered a bona fide explanation with full disclosure, thus penalty was not leviable and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had fully disclosed all relevant facts in the return of income and merely offered the income under an incorrect head (Capital Gains instead of Income from Other Sources), it does not constitute misrepresentation or suppression of facts under Section 270A(9) of the Act. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that a change in the head of income does not warrant a penalty for misreporting. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Ld. AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the 265-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons for delayed filing to be bona fide. It noted that the CIT(A) admitted that some evidence was submitted by the assessee but dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits. Given the ex-parte assessment and lack of opportunity for the assessee to explain its case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the A.O. for reconsideration, directing the assessee to furnish relevant evidences during the hearing.
The Tribunal affirmed that severance compensation received after cessation of employment is taxable as 'profits in lieu of salary' under Section 17(3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, especially after the Finance Act, 2001 amendment. It distinguished pre-amendment case law cited by the assessee, finding no evidence to contradict the CIT(A)'s factual finding that the payment was in lieu of services, not a gratuitous or voluntary capital receipt.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's prior engagement in retail liquor business, evidenced by an earlier assessment order, license fee payments, and an audited balance sheet showing Rs. 15 lakhs as receivables, was not disputed. These receivables constituted an explained source for the bank deposits. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after the effective date of the CBDT notification mandating faceless assessment. This was contrary to the scheme of faceless reassessment, rendering the notice and consequent proceedings invalid. The Tribunal relied on various High Court judgments and a previous decision of the Tribunal on a similar issue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without considering the relevant records and gave a non-speaking order, which was arbitrary and unjustified. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) indeed sent notices to a wrong email ID, resulting in non-communication to the assessee and violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to produce relevant records and evidences regarding the TDS issue and other additions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was not maintainable as the assessee had already filed an appeal against the assessment order before the CIT(A), which was pending. The Tribunal also condoned a delay of 202 days in filing the present appeal.
The Tribunal held that revenue expenditure incurred between the setting up of business and its commencement should be allowed as deduction, as the business was set up and ready for commencement. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions for share capital and loans, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee as reasonable and bona fide. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (the AE-USAID agreement) which the DRP had rejected solely on procedural grounds, stating that such rejection defeats substantive justice. The matter was consequently remanded to the DRP with a direction to reconsider the issue afresh after duly considering the admitted additional evidence and providing proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 571 days, subject to a nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, considering the assessee's age and medical condition. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of cash deposit during demonetization was unsustainable as the assessee had sufficient cash-in-hand. Similarly, the addition for the flat purchase was also deleted as it was a book adjustment within a partnership firm where the assessee was a partner and not an undisclosed investment.
The Tribunal held that for benchmarking power transactions, the gross rate charged by the State Electricity Authority, including all components, should be considered the appropriate comparable rate for ALP. The disallowance under Section 14A was upheld as sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the procedural default in filing Form 10IF was cured by CBDT's condonation, making the Section 115BAD option valid, subject to AO's verification. The issue of delayed PF payments was restored to the AO for verification, considering the Supreme Court's decision and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Tribunal considered the grounds of appeal relating to transfer pricing adjustments and the denial of depreciation. The judgment details the specific arguments and counter-arguments presented by both the assessee and the revenue.
The Tribunal decided to consolidate the appeals due to common issues. The judgment details the grounds raised by the assessee concerning transfer pricing adjustments, rejection of documentation, erroneous filters, inappropriate PLI computation, qualitative analysis, and treatment of trade receivables as advances. It also addresses the denial of depreciation on buildings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee as reasonable and bona fide. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal, noting that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity in the interest of substantial justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is also directed to cooperate.