Loading ITAT cases…
296 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that the erroneous demand notice constituted sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessee itself admitted additional income, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld. However, for assessment year 2021-22, where no additional income was admitted by the assessee, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted as there was no basis for the AO's estimation.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessee itself admitted additional income, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld. However, for assessment year 2021-22, where no additional income was admitted by the assessee, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted as there was no basis for the AO's estimation.
The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the assessee's explanation for the lower purchase price, he was bound to refer the property valuation to the DVO. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without such a reference.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have summarily discarded the assessee's explanation for the delay. A justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted, and the delay ought to have been condoned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in re-characterizing the addition from Section 69 to Section 69A without providing an opportunity to the assessee. It also found that Section 69A was not applicable to unexplained credit entries in a bank account.
The Tribunal held that since the incriminating material was delivered to the assessee's AO in a period relevant to AY 2022-23, the assessment year in question (AY 2021-22) fell within the six preceding years. Therefore, the assessment should have been framed under Section 153C, not Section 143(3).
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present relevant details and records, subject to a cost.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present relevant details and records, subject to a cost.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 15% profit on unaccounted cash receipts and income. Additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans were sustained, but the benefit of telescoping was allowed against income from estimated profits.
The Tribunal condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's bona fide reasons and the Supreme Court's decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO, emphasizing a justice-oriented and liberal approach. On merits, the Tribunal held that the chargeability of capital gains is inextricably linked to the transfer transaction itself. The sale deed dated 29/04/2017 clearly indicated the property was sold during the period relevant to AY 2018-19, not AY 2017-18. Although a portion of the sale consideration was received during the year under consideration, the actual transfer, as evidenced by the sale deed, occurred in the subsequent year. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Navin Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, which states that chargeability and computation of capital gains must go hand in hand with the transfer transaction. As the transfer did not occur in AY 2017-18, the addition of Rs. 14,63,600/- towards LTCG was vacated. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A requires under-reported income, defined as income assessed being greater than income determined under Section 143(1). Since no further disallowance was made in the Section 143(3) assessment compared to the Section 143(1) processing, there was no under-reported income, and thus no basis for penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) should not be rejected solely due to an incorrect provision mentioned in the return. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of eligibility.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income earned or received by the assessee during the year, the disallowance made under Section 14A is not permissible. The disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that in the case of a debt-free company, no separate transfer pricing adjustment for notional interest on trade receivables is warranted, following a coordinate bench decision. However, the claim of being debt-free requires factual verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not properly prosecute its case and that the AO's show cause notice provided a very short response period. Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation to be a sufficient cause due to a bona fide misunderstanding of the CIT(A)'s order. The issue regarding the disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of double taxation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal within a short period without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of six companies from the list of comparables for transfer pricing adjustment, as per previous coordinate bench decisions. It also directed the deletion of interest charged under Section 234A as the return was filed within the due date.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer rejects the books of account and estimates the business profit, further additions based on specific items from the rejected books, like license fee expenditure, are not permissible. It also found that bank accounts, once accounted for in the books, cannot be treated as unexplained credits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in entertaining the fresh claim for deduction under Section 54F as it was intrinsically linked to the capital gains brought to tax in reassessment proceedings and the assessee provided a bona fide explanation for not claiming it earlier.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not required to examine the loss on sale of assets as it fell outside the scope of limited scrutiny. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a 'change of opinion' as the AO relied on the same material available during the original assessment, without any fresh tangible evidence. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that both additions require factual verification from the assessee's books of account. The issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's genuine medical reasons. The matter was then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the assessee's inability to properly represent their case earlier.
The Tribunal held that in the case of a debt-free company, no separate transfer pricing adjustment for notional interest on outstanding trade receivables is warranted. However, the assessee's claim of being debt-free requires factual verification.
The Tribunal condoned the 3-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and admitted an additional ground challenging the validity of the Section 148 notice. The Tribunal found the Section 148 notice to be barred by limitation and quashed the reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was completed without issuing the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, rendering it without jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's genuine medical reasons. The matter was then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the assessee's inability to properly represent their case earlier.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding the assessee's explanation plausible and emphasizing a liberal approach to advance substantial justice. The quantum appeal was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, and the penalty appeal was also set aside and restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that while the companies' transactions might have been non-genuine, there was no material to prove the assessee personally earned or received commission. The assessee had transferred his shareholding and resigned from directorship prior to the transactions.
The Tribunal observed that the Valuation Officer is statutorily obligated under Section 142A(6) to submit its report within six months, which was not done for over three years. Therefore, the AO's determination of capital gain based solely on stamp duty value was unsustainable. The case was set aside to the AO with directions to either consider the DVO report if received within the statutory timeline or, if not, to adopt the actual sale consideration disclosed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that once books of account are rejected and income is estimated, separate additions cannot be made based on entries in those rejected books. The issue of loan/advance from a specific party was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding the assessee's explanation plausible and emphasizing a liberal approach to advance substantial justice. The quantum appeal was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, and the penalty appeal was also set aside and restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for reopening the assessment was barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of agricultural income was subsumed within the larger addition for unexplained cash deposits. It also found that the AO had travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny in making additions related to agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.
The Tribunal held that due to the NCLAT's interim stay order, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The previous dismissal was based on incorrect assumptions about IBC proceedings.