Loading ITAT cases…
99 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the AO an opportunity to examine the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice and Rule 46A(3). The issue was therefore remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying the surcharge rate for an AOP to a co-operative society. The surcharge should be levied as applicable to co-operative societies.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a significant delay and the assessee did not provide any valid reason or petition for condonation of delay. Furthermore, the assessee repeatedly failed to appear for hearings.
The Tribunal acknowledged the medical exigency and the regular income of the assessee and his sons. However, it found the explanation for the entire amount unsubstantiated, accepting Rs. 3 lakhs per person as reasonable savings.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) was not applicable as the assessee claimed the income was exempt retirement benefits, thus no advance tax was payable. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying the surcharge rate for an AOP to a co-operative society. The surcharge should be levied as applicable to co-operative societies.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying the surcharge rate for an AOP to a co-operative society. The AO was directed to levy surcharge as applicable to a co-operative society.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F for all 50 flats receivable under the JDA, as the pre-amended provisions allowed for multiple residential units. The JDA itself constitutes documentary evidence for entitlement.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying the surcharge rate for an AOP to a co-operative society. The surcharge should be levied as applicable to co-operative societies.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance and lack of supporting material. Relying on the Ld. DR's submissions and the material on record, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the working mechanism under Rule 10CA does not neutralize the impact of high turnover comparables. It also directed the exclusion of certain comparables based on previous decisions and allowed a credit period of 60 days for benchmarking interest on trade receivables.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a consolidated satisfaction note not being assessment-year specific. It also found that the cash component of the investment was not substantiated with evidence and lacked natural justice principles.
The Tribunal restored the issues of maintenance expenditure, amortization, and additional concessionaire fee/TCS to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. This was due to insufficient verification by the lower authorities and the need to consider the concessionaire agreement and supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to provide any material to substantiate the source of the cash deposits, the authorities below were justified in treating the same as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was invalid due to the AO's failure to record proper satisfaction. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while payment of self-assessment tax before filing an appeal is mandatory, the assessee has since paid the tax. Therefore, the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not validly served with notices and the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was set aside. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing proper notice.
The Tribunal held that opening balances of loans cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits for the current year. It also ruled that interest expenditure incurred for earning taxable interest income is allowable under Section 57(iii) if the borrowings are genuine.
The Tribunal held that while payment of self-assessment tax before filing an appeal is mandatory, the assessee has since paid the tax. Therefore, the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds of appeal, particularly regarding the time-barring of notices and the correct financial year for the property sale, were not properly addressed by the lower authorities. The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention about the sale of immovable property occurring in FY 2017-18, not FY 2016-17 as initially assumed by the AO, was valid.
The Tribunal heard both parties and accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issues of maintenance expenditure, amortization, and additional concessionaire fee/TCS to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. This was due to insufficient verification by the lower authorities and the need to consider the concessionaire agreement and supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 10AA solely because it was claimed in a revised return was incorrect. The disallowance under Section 43B and the computation of book profits under Section 115JB also required fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of a claim, even if unsustainable in law, does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, especially when the claims were disclosed and based on judicial precedents. The penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bona fide. It held that the AO erred by relying solely on unaudited financial statements and that the assessee had adequately explained the difference with audited financial statements.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had summarily rejected the assessee's claim without proper verification. The Tribunal noted the substantial land holding and the documentary evidence provided by the assessee, directing the AO to re-adjudicate the claim after necessary verifications.
The Tribunal held that computer-generated bank statements do not require certification and that the assessee had discharged the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors. Therefore, the addition made by the AO should be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation periods during the pandemic. It upheld the PCIT's action under Section 263, finding the AO's assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to lack of proper inquiry and verification regarding the capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed six-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, subject to costs, and held that interest earned on deposits made as security for availing business loans is incidental to the assessee's business activities and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the fate of the penalty orders was dependent on the outcome of the pending quantum appeal. Therefore, the CIT(A) should not have adjudicated the penalty appeals before the quantum appeal was decided.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 56 was legally unsustainable. The AO failed to bring corroborative evidence for the alleged receipt and did not properly examine the issue under capital gains provisions.
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to recompute the arm's length price of interest on outstanding receivables by following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for prior years. The claim for adjustment of brought forward losses was upheld based on the DRP's direction to the AO to verify the records.
The Tribunal found contradictions in the TPO's reasoning for excluding 'I Services India Private Limited' and 'Cheers Interactive India Private Limited' from comparables. The Tribunal also noted a potential double addition of Rs. 23,972/- on account of interest on TDS.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 1050 days was inordinate and not supported by any justifiable explanation. The assessee's conduct indicated a lackadaisical approach and lack of bona fides, disentitling them to condonation of delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, subject to costs, and held that interest earned on deposits made as security for availing business loans is incidental to the assessee's business activities and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that while registration of a sale deed is not a mandatory precondition for Section 54 exemption, the AO had not examined the actual investment. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO to verify the genuineness of the investment and related circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 56 was legally unsustainable. The AO failed to bring corroborative evidence for the alleged receipt and did not properly examine the issue under capital gains provisions.
The Tribunal held that while registration of a sale deed is not a mandatory precondition for Section 54 exemption, the AO had not examined the actual investment. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO to verify the genuineness of the investment and related circumstances.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that the cash deposits originated from his wife's kirana business. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the order regarding the IT/software development services, directing a fresh TP study due to dissimilarities in functional analysis. For delayed trade receivables, the Tribunal directed recomputation of interest allowing a 60-day credit period, following precedent.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated and completed in the name of a deceased person, when the department is aware of the death, are void ab initio. Such a jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by the participation of the legal heir or by a mere reference to the death in the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the fate of the penalty orders was dependent on the outcome of the pending quantum appeal. Therefore, the CIT(A) should not have adjudicated the penalty appeals before the quantum appeal was decided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the claimed construction cost with relevant details, including bank statements and confirmation from the builder. The possession certificate also indicated the property was handed over later than initially assumed by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without providing an opportunity for hearing, especially since the assessment order was ex parte. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was valid as the initial information indicated income escapement exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs. On merits, a portion of the cash deposits was accepted as explained, while the balance was upheld.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 1.25% profit on suppressed sales and delete additions made towards inflated purchases, finding them unsubstantiated. For AY 2023-24, the addition on gross profit difference was deleted entirely.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the four-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to illness constituted a 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the delay should be condoned, and the appeal should be decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 80AC, requiring timely filing for Section 80P deduction, was applicable from AY 2019-20 onwards. Since the assessment year was prior to this amendment, the disallowance based on late filing was incorrect. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had proven its eligibility and thus the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed additional evidence before it which was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the additional evidence.