Loading ITAT cases…
57 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that while the requirement of Form 10IC is mandatory, considering the technical glitches and the bonafide attempt of the assessee, the impugned order should be set aside. The assessee is directed to file Form 10IC within one month, and the CPC is directed to open the window for this purpose.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the appellate order were passed ex-parte. Considering the assessee's illiteracy and lack of understanding of tax procedures, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and submissions from both parties, remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on grounds of non-prosecution without deciding on merits. Considering the circumstances and the request of the Ld. DR, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee came to know about the intimation order only upon receipt of the demand recovery notice. Therefore, the rectification application was filed within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee came to know about the intimation order only upon receipt of the demand recovery notice. Therefore, the rectification application was filed within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal noted that the e-filing period was extended and the appeal was filed within the extended timeline. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 80AC, which the AO relied upon, specifically denies deductions under Sections 80-IA to 80-IE and has no bearing on exemptions granted under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the 20th proviso to Section 10(23C), which was introduced to deny exemption for non-filing of returns, is applicable only from AY 2023-24 onwards and thus not relevant for the assessment year under appeal. The Tribunal also referred to judicial precedents, including a decision of the ITAT Kolkata Bench in Haringhata Mahavidyalay Vs. ITO, which supported the view that exemption under Section 10(23C) cannot be denied solely for non-filing or late filing of the return for AYs prior to the applicability of the 20th proviso. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) after necessary verification. The issue of penalties under Sections 270A and 271F was not specifically decided by the Tribunal in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal should be allowed. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute regarding the eligibility of the deduction under Section 80-IA, and that this deduction had been allowed in preceding years. The core issue was the delay in uploading Form 10CCB, which was considered a procedural lapse adequately explained by an affidavit from the auditors. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the ITAT (SMC Bench, Lucknow) in Satish Cold Storage, which allowed a similar appeal. Regarding the incorrect sub-head selection in the return, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that this inadvertent mistake should not obstruct the deduction, as the facts clearly indicated the assessee's eligibility. The AO was directed to allow the deduction under Section 80-IA(4)(iv) based on the Form 10CCB filed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of TDS of Rs. 14,59,120 deducted in the name of his wife. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 199 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 37BA(2) (without its proviso), mandates that credit for TDS should be allowed to the person in whose hands the income is chargeable to tax. The proviso to Rule 37BA(2) is a procedural aspect to facilitate this, and its non-compliance, if directory, should not defeat the substantive provision. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was the sole beneficial owner, offered the entire capital loss, and that the wife had not claimed the TDS credit. The Tribunal followed the decision of ITAT, Pune. The AO was directed to allow the credit after verifying that the wife had not claimed it and that no double credit was given. The issue of the capital loss was not disputed.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-prosecution. Considering the submissions and the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal restored both the assessment and penalty matters to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after the revenue conceded to the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had mistakenly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on an incorrect understanding of the VSV Scheme application.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to first decide on the delay and then consider the appeal on its merits, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal first addressed the issue of delay in filing the appeal. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit explaining the circumstances. The Tribunal, considering the reasons provided, found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the unavoidable circumstances that led to the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Following the condonation of delay, the Tribunal would then proceed to hear the appeal on its merits. However, the provided text only covers the decision on the condonation of delay and does not contain the Tribunal's findings or reasoning on the substantive issue of the rejection of the 80G registration application by the CIT(E). Therefore, the finding on the second issue is not recorded in this excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable. This was because the income was surrendered during a survey and not a search, and the penalty notice was also defective as it did not specify the limb of the section under which the penalty was being levied.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of additions made by the AO under section 153A, particularly concerning the lack of incriminating material in unabated years and the denial of cross-examination, was squarely decided by the ITAT Indore Bench in the case of M/s Asnani Builders & Developers Ltd., another JV partner in the same project. The Tribunal found the assessee's position to be no different. Following the precedent, the Tribunal allowed Grounds No. 2 and 3 in favour of the assessee. Regarding the necessity of cross-examination, the Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber, which held that it is not for the adjudicating authority to determine the purpose for which an assessee requires cross-examination. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO in all six Assessment Years (2013-14 to 2018-19) were not sustainable and were liable to be deleted. The Tribunal ordered accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report is a procedural lapse and not a reason to deny the exemption under Section 11/12. The assessment proceedings were considered pending until the appeal was decided by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 based on the proviso to Section 12A(2), as the registration under Section 12AA was granted during the pendency of assessment proceedings. The delay in filing the audit report was not a bar to claiming exemption, especially when the report was filed during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be bad in law and unsustainable. The assessee had not been provided with necessary evidence, even after an RTI application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the circumstances explained. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the assessee had collected all relevant details and was ready to represent the case properly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 549 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a "sufficient cause" for the delay, as explained in the condonation application and supported by the affidavit. The Tribunal relied on Section 253(5) of the Act and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal admitted the appeal and proceeded with the hearing. On the merits, both the assessee and the revenue agreed that the assessment order was passed due to the non-supply of the cash book. The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The AO was directed to give the assessee an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It also remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to represent their case.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed with too short a time for the assessee to plead their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a denovo hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the second appeal, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not meritorious and set it aside, remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to cooperate and a cost was imposed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice, and admitted the appeal for hearing. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not meritorious. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment.
अधिकरण ने माना कि वर्तमान मामले में विवादाधीन मुद्दों का कर प्रभाव 25,000/- रुपये है, जो सीबीडीटी द्वारा निर्धारित 60 लाख रुपये की सीमा से काफी कम है। इसलिए, परिपत्र के अनुसार विभाग को यह अपील दाखिल नहीं करनी चाहिए थी।
The Tribunal found sufficient weight in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) had summarily upheld the AO's order without passing an appropriate order in terms of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the non-participation of the assessee before the CIT(A) was due to non-receipt of notices, a fact that had been taken cognizance of by the Hon'ble High Court. Considering the principle of natural justice and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in future hearings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. The issue of whether the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on merits was implicitly addressed by remanding the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) was not sustainable and was liable to be deleted. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Indore, in a case involving an identical fact pattern and a group company of the assessee, ACIT, Ratlam vs. M/s Shirani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 555/Ind/2018, order dated 31.03.2023). The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Madhur Housing & Development Co. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 502 and the Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Bhaumik Color Pvt. Ltd. (122 TTJ 865 Mum SB). These decisions established that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) is assessable only in the hands of a shareholder of the lender company, and not in the hands of a borrowing concern in which such a shareholder has a substantial interest. Since the assessee-company was neither a registered nor a beneficial shareholder of the lender company, M/s Arihant Bio-Chem Ltd., Section 2(22)(e) could not be invoked. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench and accordingly deleted the addition. The assessee succeeded on Ground No. 5.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. The Authorized Representative requested to withdraw the appeal, which was not opposed by the departmental representative. Accordingly, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders passed by the AO were invalid on a preliminary legal ground. The Tribunal found that the show-cause notices issued by the AO under Section 274 of the Act contained both charges, namely, "concealed the particulars of income" or "furnished inaccurate particulars of income," without striking off either alternative. This practice was held to be illegal and unsustainable by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of *Kulwant Singh Bhatia*. The Tribunal noted that this decision relied on the precedents set in *CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory* and *CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows*, which were also upheld by the Supreme Court. These judgments established that a penalty levy must be clear as to the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) for which it is levied, and a standard proforma notice without striking off the relevant clauses indicates a non-application of mind. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings at the threshold on the legality aspect, without going into the merits of the penalty. The assessee's grounds of appeal related to the invalidity of the show-cause notices (Grounds 2 to 4) were allowed. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders passed by the AO were invalid on a preliminary legal ground. The Tribunal found that the show-cause notices issued by the AO under Section 274 of the Act contained both charges, namely, "concealed the particulars of income" or "furnished inaccurate particulars of income," without striking off either alternative. This practice was held to be illegal and unsustainable by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of *Kulwant Singh Bhatia*. The Tribunal noted that this decision relied on the precedents set in *CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory* and *CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows*, which were also upheld by the Supreme Court. These judgments established that a penalty levy must be clear as to the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) for which it is levied, and a standard proforma notice without striking off the relevant clauses indicates a non-application of mind. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings at the threshold on the legality aspect, without going into the merits of the penalty. The assessee's grounds of appeal related to the invalidity of the show-cause notices (Grounds 2 to 4) were allowed. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders passed by the AO were invalid on a preliminary legal ground. The Tribunal found that the show-cause notices issued by the AO under Section 274 of the Act contained both charges, namely, "concealed the particulars of income" or "furnished inaccurate particulars of income," without striking off either alternative. This practice was held to be illegal and unsustainable by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of *Kulwant Singh Bhatia*. The Tribunal noted that this decision relied on the precedents set in *CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory* and *CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows*, which were also upheld by the Supreme Court. These judgments established that a penalty levy must be clear as to the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) for which it is levied, and a standard proforma notice without striking off the relevant clauses indicates a non-application of mind. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings at the threshold on the legality aspect, without going into the merits of the penalty. The assessee's grounds of appeal related to the invalidity of the show-cause notices (Grounds 2 to 4) were allowed. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee could not participate in the first appeal proceedings due to technical issues with their email. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal has not yet provided a decision on the merits of the case. The provided text only outlines the procedural aspects of the appeals being filed and the parties involved.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties, the principle of natural justice, and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee's inability to represent its case due to circumstances beyond its control, including the pandemic and communication issues, warranted an opportunity for a proper hearing. The AO was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by the earlier orders. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass orders in accordance with law. The issue regarding the additions on account of 'Loans & Advances' was implicitly left to be decided by the AO upon remand.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the quantum appeal (ITA No. 517/Ind/2024) based on the "sufficient cause" explained by the assessee, citing Section 253(5) of the Act and the principle of substantial justice as laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal found the explanation in the condonation application to be authentic and noted the absence of any contrary facts or materials from the revenue. The Tribunal also agreed with the submissions of both the assessee and the revenue to remand the quantum appeal (ITA No. 517/Ind/2024) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty appeal (ITA No. 248/Ind/2025), being dependent on the quantum appeal, was also remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the outcome of the quantum appeal and the assessee's submissions. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order uninfluenced by the previous order, with a caution to the assessee to avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee's explanation that sales were recorded net of discounts and expenses was consistent across survey and assessment proceedings, and the CIT(A) had correctly verified this with the recast and audited accounts.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties, the principle of natural justice, and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee's inability to represent its case due to circumstances beyond its control, including the pandemic and communication issues, warranted an opportunity for a proper hearing. The AO was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by the earlier orders. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass orders in accordance with law. The issue regarding the additions on account of 'Loans & Advances' was implicitly left to be decided by the AO upon remand.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh, emphasizing the principle of natural justice and ensuring an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The AO was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The AO was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The AO was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment under Section 147 requires tangible material and cannot be based on a mere change of opinion. The facts of the case were found to be identical to the Kelvinator's case, where reopening based on information already available in the tax audit report was quashed.
The Tribunal has consolidated two appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of the CIT(A). The appeals challenge assessment orders passed under Section 147/144 of the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties, the principle of natural justice, and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, decided to remand the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee's inability to represent its case due to circumstances beyond its control, including the pandemic and communication issues, warranted an opportunity for a proper hearing. The AO was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by the earlier orders. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass orders in accordance with law. The issue regarding the additions on account of 'Loans & Advances' was implicitly left to be decided by the AO upon remand.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the quantum appeal, finding a sufficient cause. Both the quantum and penalty appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.