Loading ITAT cases…
169 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeal, finding the reasons genuine. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of commission expenditure, finding the assessee's explanation for higher commission payments to be bona fide. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as being barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was correct in granting registration under Section 12A to the assessee. The Tribunal reasoned that the objects of the assessee, namely the promotion of rural development and Panchayati Raj, are for the advancement of objects of general public utility. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was established by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, and its activities were aimed at improving the lives of rural populations and strengthening democratic institutions at the grassroots level. These objectives fall squarely within the definition of charitable purposes under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that the objects were not exclusively charitable, as the primary and overarching purpose was public welfare. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to grant registration was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating the merits. The Tribunal also noted that the notice for reopening was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer without following the National Faceless Assessment Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.21 lakhs, offered voluntarily to buy peace of mind without incriminating material, cannot be taxed under Section 115BBE, but should be taxed at normal rates. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271AAB(1A) for "undisclosed income" was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained. The Tribunal referred to its earlier order in the quantum appeal (ITA No.175/Hyd/2023), which recorded a clear and categorical finding that no incriminating material was found during the search concerning the Rs.24 lakhs addition. The Tribunal then examined the definition of "undisclosed income" under clause (c) of the Explanation to section 271AAB, which requires the income to be represented by money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable article/thing, or by any entry in books of account or other documents or transactions found during the search. Since the Tribunal had already established that no incriminating material was found, the Rs.24 lakhs did not fall within the definition of "undisclosed income". Consequently, the statutory condition for levying penalty under section 271AAB(1A) was not fulfilled. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found that the AO had passed the order and made additions without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain his case and produce the creditors for verification, despite the assessee's indication of readiness to do so. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the AO for a 'de novo' consideration, granting the assessee another chance to prove the source of the cash deposits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the legal ground concerning the validity of the notice issued under Section 148. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after the effective date of CBDT Notification No. 18/2022, which mandated that all notices under Section 148 must be issued through the Faceless Assessment Unit. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Telangana in Kotha Kanthaiah (supra) and its own prior decisions, the Tribunal held that such a notice issued by the JAO was not valid and was liable to be quashed. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the impugned assessment order was quashed. The Tribunal also noted that the issue was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP filed by the Revenue in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., and granted liberty to the parties to get the appeal revived if the Supreme Court's judgment necessitated a modification. As the appeal was allowed on a legal ground, other grounds were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Regarding the cash deposits and unexplained investment, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence and confirmed the additions. For the disallowed deductions and capital gains, the Tribunal noted that evidence was produced before the CIT(A) and thus upheld the CIT(A)'s action of remanding these issues to the AO. The penalty under Section 271AAC was upheld as the assessee did not offer the income in the return.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's treatment of the profit from car sale, by reducing it from the WDV of the block of assets, was a bona fide and permissible claim, not constituting furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer failed to record explicit satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings concerning this specific addition in the assessment order. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the profit on sale of the car was deemed invalid and deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the 80-IA(4) deduction solely because it was not claimed in the original return, as a revised return can be used for such claims if conditions are met. However, the issue of TDS credit for mobilization advances was set aside to the AO for verification due to contradictory arguments from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) arbitrarily made the addition without verifying the bank withdrawal details. The assessee had provided bank statements showing sufficient withdrawals to cover the seized cash.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form-67 is a procedural irregularity and not mandatory, and therefore, the FTC claim should not be denied solely on this ground. The Tribunal relied on judicial pronouncements stating that DTAA provisions override domestic law and that FTC is a vested right.
The Tribunal held that a belated return filed in response to a Section 142(1) notice, and during the pendency of assessment proceedings, is a valid return. Citing judicial precedents, it ruled that the issuance of a Section 143(2) notice is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement for scrutiny assessments, and its complete absence renders the assessment order void ab initio. Section 292BB does not cure the total non-issuance of notice, only infirmities in its service.
The ITAT found that the credit entries of Rs.91,090/- were rental receipts duly disclosed by the assessee in her return of income for the relevant assessment year. As the source of the income was explained and disclosed, there was no justification for the addition under Section 69A. Therefore, the addition of Rs.91,090/- sustained by the CIT(A) was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the FAA's dismissal of the appeal without awaiting a remand report from the AO on a connected matter, and without affording further opportunity, violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that for penalty under Section 271AAB(1A) to be leviable, the income must qualify as 'undisclosed income' as defined, requiring incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the Rs. 28 lakhs in question, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the 80-IA(4) deduction solely because it was not claimed in the original return, as a revised return can be used for such claims if conditions are met. However, the issue of TDS credit for mobilization advances was set aside to the AO for verification due to contradictory arguments from the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that foreign exchange gain related to the sales of the year should be considered part of the total turnover for income estimation and not taxed separately. For income from duty credit scrips, the AO was directed to determine if they relate to the current year and, if so, include them in the total turnover/gross receipts for income estimation. The appeal was heard ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form-67 is a procedural irregularity and not mandatory, and therefore, the FTC claim should not be denied solely on this ground. The Tribunal relied on judicial pronouncements stating that DTAA provisions override domestic law and that FTC is a vested right.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT cannot invoke revisional powers under Section 263 merely on suspicion or disagreement with the Assessing Officer's view. The Assessing Officer had conducted due enquiry and taken a possible view based on the records, which was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11 was allowable. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the bonafide reasons explained by the assessee, including the non-communication of the assessment order and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for reassessment, without following the National Faceless Assessment Scheme, are invalid and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the reassessment order is also vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the notices and assessment order were bad in law and illegal as they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) outside the faceless mechanism, contrary to established schemes and High Court judgments. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was invalid because the AO failed to obtain prior approval from the specified authority as required by Section 151 of the Act, given that more than three years had lapsed from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an "assessee in default" under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal concurred with the assessee's submission that the seller, Mrs. Sabera Attari, had provided her Indian address, Aadhar Card, and PAN Card at the time of executing the registered sale deed. This led the assessee to have no reason to doubt the seller's status and infer that she was a non-resident Indian. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was unaware of and misled by the seller regarding her residential status. Acting in good faith upon the documents provided, the assessee deducted tax at source at 1%, the rate applicable for payments to resident Indians. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held to have willfully deducted tax at source at a lower rate. The Tribunal's view was fortified by the decision in Shri Ajay Dudeja and others vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Gurgaon. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the ADIT to vacate the demand raised against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued without obtaining prior approval from the prescribed higher authorities as required by section 151, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal, noting the Department's lack of objection, found that ITA No.1708/Hyd/2025 was indeed a duplication of the original appeal, which was still pending. Consequently, the present appeal, ITA No.1708/Hyd/2025, was dismissed as infructuous.
The ITAT noted the Revenue's lack of effective service proof beyond an ITBA portal screenshot. Although the assessee's explanation for delay was plausible, it was not formally presented to the CIT(A). The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to reconsider the assessee's explanation for the delay and decide the issue on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without a speaking order and without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 133-day delay, acknowledging the medical reasons and adopting a lenient approach. It observed that the assessee claimed to be a retail seller, which might exempt them from Section 206C(6A) and 206C(7) provisions. Given the non-cooperation before lower authorities and the ex-parte orders, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO to re-examine the applicability of the TCS provisions after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The CIT(A) identified contradictions between the A.O.'s assessment order and the remand report regarding the linkage of additions to seized material, and therefore, set aside the issue for de novo consideration by the A.O. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that remanding the case was appropriate to allow the assessee a proper opportunity to explain the incriminating material and for the A.O. to conduct further verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation as they were issued beyond the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, passed on October 23, 2024, was indeed barred by limitation as the statutory time limit expired on December 31, 2023. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore, it was liable to be quashed. The appeal was allowed on this legal issue.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the AO was barred by limitation. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents were not 'dumb documents' and constituted credible evidence. The assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions as required by law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without a speaking order and without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction under Section 54F. It held that the TDS amount, being unavailable to the assessee for investment, should be considered as part of the sale consideration utilized for new property construction, especially considering COVID-related extensions.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation as they were issued beyond the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation as they were issued beyond the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Act after 29.03.2022 is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained, following decisions of the Telangana High Court. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 147 r.w.s. 144, consequent to the invalid notice, was quashed. Liberty was granted to both parties to revive the appeal if the pending Supreme Court decision on the matter requires it.
The Tribunal acknowledged similarities between the unsigned agreement and the registered sale deed and the Section 132(4) statement, but ruled that the unsigned document could not be solely relied upon without corroborative evidence of Rs. 13,00,000/- payment through banking channels. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of this payment; if confirmed, the addition might be sustained, otherwise not.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, noting its relevance and the genuine reasons for its delayed submission. However, it found material discrepancies in the dates of agreements and receipts, and a lack of verification regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the alleged purchasers. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing a detailed examination of the evidence and verification of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the notices and assessment order were bad in law as they were issued by the JAO outside the faceless mechanism, contrary to the e-Assessment Scheme and the judgment of the Telangana High Court. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the procedure adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) was not in accordance with law. When additional evidence is filed under Rule 46A and the matter is remanded, it is mandatory to give the AO an effective opportunity to examine the evidence and furnish a remand report. Deciding the issue without awaiting the remand report denies the AO his statutory right and violates the principles of natural justice. The assessee's consistent non-compliance further compounded the issue. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restored the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to call for a fresh and complete remand report from the AO, provide the AO with an opportunity to examine the evidence, and then adjudicate the issue on merits after receiving the report. The assessee is directed to cooperate fully.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the orders under Section 148A(d) and notices under Section 148 of the Act for all assessment years were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Following the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana's judgment in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO, the ITAT held that the assessment proceedings initiated by the JAO outside the faceless mechanism were illegal, constituting an invalid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the orders under Section 148A(d) and notices under Section 148 of the Act for all assessment years were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Following the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana's judgment in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO, the ITAT held that the assessment proceedings initiated by the JAO outside the faceless mechanism were illegal, constituting an invalid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits into the Development Credit Bank were sufficiently explained by previous withdrawals and directed the AO to delete the addition. However, regarding the Axis Bank account held in the name of M/s. Madhu Infotech, the Tribunal found the ownership unclear and set aside the issue to the AO for further verification.