Loading ITAT cases…
187 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 675 days, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee's reasonable cause for the delay. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the gains from the purchase and sale of listed equity shares should be treated as short-term capital gains, taxable at 15%, as the assessee maintained separate accounts, used no borrowed funds, and had a consistent history of treating such gains as capital gains.
The Tribunal held that revaluation of assets does not generate real profit or income that can be taxed. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the intention of CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024 was to mitigate genuine hardship caused by the complex provisions. Therefore, the assessee trusts are entitled to the benefit of the circular, allowing them to make a fresh application.
The Tribunal held that the intention of CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024 was to mitigate genuine hardship caused by the complex provisions. Therefore, the assessee trusts are entitled to the benefit of the circular, allowing them to make a fresh application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient cause. The Tribunal further held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was not sustainable in law and set it aside.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was bad in law due to lack of approval under Section 151. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings, including the addition made by the AO, were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not deserve to suffer penalty proceedings as the taxability of the receipts was debatable and the assessee acted on a genuine belief, supported by tax consultants. The conduct of the assessee was not mala fide.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide specific reasons to disbelieve the assessee's explanation regarding cash in hand. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's audited accounts supported its trading activities and cash balance.
The Tribunal has not yet pronounced its decision on the merits of the case as the provided text is only the beginning of the order. The appeal is against the rejection of registration under Section 80G(5)(iii).
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without valid jurisdiction because the notices under Section 148 and 143(2) were issued by an officer who lacked jurisdiction over the assessee's case. Relying on High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal restored the appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to lack of application of mind and change of opinion, quashing the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the evidences provided by the assessee. The addition was made solely on the ground of non-compliance with summons, which was deemed unsustainable when the assessee had furnished documentary proof of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted merely as a facilitator or middleman in principal-to-principal transactions between Zilingo and various suppliers/manufacturers. The commission received and paid was for these facilitation services.
The Tribunal restored the appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to lack of application of mind and change of opinion, quashing the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that commencing activities before provisional approval does not bar an assessee from seeking final registration. The application for final approval was considered within the prescribed period, following a precedent.
The tribunal decided to issue a corrigendum to rectify errors in the cause title of the order. The corrected cause title will be reflected in the official records.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked objective satisfaction. The AO merely stated information received and a survey report without demonstrating how income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was framed without jurisdiction as the notice u/s 143(2) and the final assessment order were issued by an officer not having the pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the assessee had provided evidence of banking transactions, bills, VAT returns, and delivery challans. The Tribunal noted that similar purchases were accepted in a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO's addition based solely on the non-compliance with summons was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was framed without jurisdiction as the notice u/s 143(2) and the final assessment order were issued by an officer not having the pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to lack of application of mind and change of opinion, quashing the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without valid jurisdiction because the notices under Section 148 and 143(2) were issued by an officer who lacked jurisdiction over the assessee's case. Relying on High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of not condemning anyone unheard. The assessee was directed to attend the proceedings and file necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that an application for final registration under Section 80G(5)(iii) cannot be rejected on the ground that the institution had already commenced its activities prior to the grant of provisional registration. The date of commencement of activity for this purpose is counted from the grant of provisional registration.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to verify the genuineness of the information and did not establish the receipt of Rs. 35 Lakh. Considering the prior year's assessment where no addition was made after verification, the Tribunal found the AO's action to be a mechanical acceptance of information without application of mind.
The Tribunal held that once books of accounts are rejected, the AO should estimate profits rather than making specific disallowances. Considering the assessee's declared net profit rate and previous tribunal decisions, the net profit was estimated at 7.50%.
The Tribunal dismissed the first appeal as non-maintainable, upholding the CIT(E)'s decision to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. For the second appeal, the Tribunal followed a previous decision and directed the CIT(E) to grant final approval if the assessee is otherwise eligible, irrespective of the application date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient details like company master data, share application and allotment details, ROC filings, bank statements, and ITRs of subscriber companies. The AO failed to conduct further investigation to disprove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the subscribers.
The Tribunal dismissed the first appeal as non-maintainable, upholding the CIT(E)'s decision to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. For the second appeal, the Tribunal followed a previous decision and directed the CIT(E) to grant final approval if the assessee is otherwise eligible, irrespective of the application date.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on the basis of post-search inquiry and not on any incriminating material found during the search. Following its own previous decision and the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal found no addition under Section 68 was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for approval under Section 80G. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for regular exemption under Section 80G(5)(iii) after being granted provisional approval under Section 80G(5)(iv). The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions in IAC Patrons Foundation vs. CIT(E) and Tomorrow's Foundation vs. CIT(E), which interpreted the provisions of Section 80G(5) and its provisos. The Tribunal reasoned that after provisional approval is granted, an application cannot be rejected merely because the institution commenced activities before the provisional registration. The date of commencement of activity for the purpose of the six-month rule under Clause (iii) of the First Proviso should be counted from when an activity is undertaken after the grant of provisional registration. Therefore, the assessee's application was considered within the limitation period. The impugned order was set aside, and the CIT(Exemptions) was directed to grant provisional approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) if the assessee is otherwise eligible, and to decide the application for final registration within three months.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment to re-examine the opening balance, as the closing balance for the preceding year had already been accepted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash balance which was explained.
The Tribunal held that payments related to the COVID period should be excluded from disallowance as per the EPFO circular, remanding this part for verification. It also deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,53,292/- for ESI payment made on the next working day after a holiday.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this notice were deemed illegal and void.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reverify the tax credit of Rs. 2,08,33,780/- and ensure it is not excluded if no refund is granted. However, the ground related to CSR expenditure was rejected as not maintainable in the present appeal.