Loading ITAT cases…
88 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not responding to three of the four notices due to the incorrect email address. However, the assessee did reply to one notice without providing the requested information.
The Tribunal held that the share application money had been refunded back by the assessee to the company. Considering the facts and circumstances, the addition sustained by the lower authorities was not justified.
The ITAT noted that the assessee consistently denied any transactions with Shri Trilok Goel and provided bank statements and an affidavit to support this claim. The Tribunal found that the addition was made by the Revenue Authorities despite the assessee's detailed reply and supporting documents. The Bench observed that if the Department finds no evidence of dealing, the addition should be deleted.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices from the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) provided limited hearing opportunities. However, it was also observed that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's written submission. Therefore, the tribunal found that the principle of natural justice was violated.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was deprived of contesting the case before the lower authorities. Although the assessee was lethargic, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication to decide the lis on merits, providing one more opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that this was the second round of litigation and that the assessee had not appeared or provided any submissions or documents to support their grounds of appeal in either the CIT(A) stage or before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the absence of any material, the Tribunal had no alternative but to confirm the action of the CIT(A).
The Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow proper procedure by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without properly communicating the rejection of the adjournment request or providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The dismissal order was not passed on the date of hearing, indicating a procedural lapse.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding commission income, holding that additions solely based on a mismatch between Form 26AS and P&L account receipts are unsustainable. For interest income, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct necessary inquiries and wrongly placed the onus on the assessee to prove a negative.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's grievance that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more chance to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had considered the material on record and the PCIT's view amounted to a change of opinion, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue Authorities erred in concluding that the assessee claimed depreciation twice. The assessee had reduced depreciation from sales to claim deduction under Section 80-IA, which is permissible as depreciation is an expenditure.
The ITAT held that the assessee failed to respond adequately to the show cause notice regarding sundry creditors, despite opportunities. The Tribunal found that the assessee's belief that the ground was not valid was not a justification for non-compliance.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the peculiar facts and the affidavit filed by the assessee. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition as there was no evidence to suggest the withdrawn money was utilized elsewhere. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the cash withdrawal was available for re-deposit.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to entertain a new claim or legal contention for the first time, even if not made before the Assessing Officer, provided the necessary facts are on record. The CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the claim for exemption under Section 11.
The Assessing Officer (AO) confirmed the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer, holding that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the investor companies, which were found to be non-existent and controlled by a single individual.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of the assessee having opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, as the scheme was availed only for penalty and not for the quantum of income. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned subject to costs.
The Tribunal held that the addition in respect of jewellery belonging to the deceased mother-in-law and jewellery mortgaged by a third party should be deleted, applying CBDT circulars and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee, being an NRI, faced issues with notice service. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the penalty appeal as consequential.
The tribunal held that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's NRI status and issues with notice service. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that for Ground 1, the approval for converting to full scrutiny was obtained before the assessment was completed, and no prejudice was shown to the assessee. For salary, bonus, printing, stationery, office consumables, training, and certification expenses (Grounds 2-6), the assessee failed to provide sufficient supporting documents. For the ground on set-off of losses and depreciation, the CIT(A) had partly allowed it, directing the AO to verify the returns. However, the Tribunal dismissed Ground 7 as the assessee failed to provide contrary material.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had failed to provide a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay is not an automatic right and requires a diligent explanation.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the limitation of reassessment proceedings. It was found that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed time limit, making the reassessment proceedings illegal and void.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not correctly appreciated the assessee's explanation regarding the source of cash. It also noted that the cash book and bank statements supported the assessee's claim that the income from the cash had been disclosed in the return.
The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 7 (Building Fund) and Ground No. 9 (Corpus Fund) in ITA No. 60/JP/2024, stating that the facts were similar to ITA No. 57/JP/2024. In ITA No. 57/JP/2024, the Tribunal held that the transfer of funds to the Building Fund was an appropriation for construction, and since actual expenses incurred on construction exceeded the appropriated amount, the deduction should be allowed as application of income. For Corpus donations, the Tribunal held that a trust registered under Section 12A can utilize corpus funds for its requirements, and such donations are fully exempt. Therefore, corpus donations should not be added to the income. The Tribunal also allowed Ground No. 10 (Surplus) in ITA No. 60/JP/2024, referencing ITA No. 57/JP/2024, where it was held that for a trust registered under Section 12A, the surplus within the 15% threshold limit of the Income and Expenditure Account is not taxable, and exemption under Section 11/10(23C) is allowable. The Tribunal's decision in ITA No. 57/JP/2024 was applied mutatis mutandis to similar grounds in ITA No. 60/JP/2024. The appeals in ITA No. 57 & 58/JP/2024 were allowed, and appeals in ITA No. 59 & 60/JP/2024 were partly allowed. The specific findings on other grounds are not detailed in the provided extract.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty related to legal and professional expenses, upfront fees, and legal expenses to IDFCL, as the assessee had a bonafide belief that these were revenue in nature and no inaccurate particulars were furnished. For the other issues, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty because the additions were set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, and thus the penalty initiated based on the original order could not survive.
The Tribunal allowed appeals for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2012-13, and partly allowed appeals for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16. The decision was based on the similarity of grounds with a previously decided appeal (ITA No. 57/JP/2024) concerning building fund, corpus fund, and surplus income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation for the source of the cash investment in the property. The discrepancies in payment modes and the nature of cash expenditure led to the addition being upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) ought to have granted one more opportunity to the applicant to produce the requisite certificate of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, especially since the applicant was subsequently registered. Furthermore, documents submitted by the applicant regarding the genuineness of activities were not considered by the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for the new tax regime as Form 10-IE was filed after the due date. However, to ensure natural justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the claims for deductions under the old regime.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, when not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Act, is not allowable under Section 36(1)(va). This decision is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had undertaken business activities by purchasing land, entering into a development agreement with an AOP, and initiating development work on another plot. Therefore, the financial expenses were allowable.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had filed a fresh application based on a CBDT circular, rendering the current appeal infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without prejudice to the merits of the fresh application.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the AO's order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT's view was considered a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had erred in cancelling the registration. The cancellation was based on grounds that were not adequately substantiated and the proceedings were initiated without proper adherence to the amended provisions of the Act.