Loading ITAT cases…
268 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as there was no mala fide intention or concealment of income, but rather a misconception regarding depreciation rates and debatable disallowances. Most disallowances were set aside by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on a misunderstanding of which order the VSVS scheme was applied to. The case was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the AO had observed that the assessee failed to explain why the investment in shares of foreign deals was not disclosed in the books of account. However, the assessee had explained that the amount of Rs. 1,464/- was drawn from regular funds during her foreign visit and was not accounted separately due to its small size, being considered part of expenditure for the visit. The Tribunal found that the assessee subsequently showed this investment in her books of account by crediting her capital account in AY 2016-17. The Tribunal concluded that the source of the amount had been clearly explained and found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's appeal. Therefore, both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the need to advance substantial justice. The appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, citing various High Court judgments that treat it as a procedural requirement. The AO was directed to allow the exemption as per law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of advancing substantial justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case and documents before the AO. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the detailed reasons provided by the assessee. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to be vigilant about future communications.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the AO had observed that the assessee failed to explain why the investment in shares of foreign deals was not disclosed in the books of account. However, the assessee had explained that the amount of Rs. 1,464/- was drawn from regular funds during her foreign visit and was not accounted separately due to its small size, being considered part of expenditure for the visit. The Tribunal found that the assessee subsequently showed this investment in her books of account by crediting her capital account in AY 2016-17. The Tribunal concluded that the source of the amount had been clearly explained and found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's appeal. Therefore, both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case on merits before the CIT(A). The ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interest of justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case before the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the detailed reasons provided by the assessee. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to be vigilant about future communications.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as there was no mala fide intention or concealment of income, but rather a misconception regarding depreciation rates and debatable disallowances. Most disallowances were set aside by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of advancing substantial justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's medical reasons and submission of supporting documents, the Tribunal restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the need to advance substantial justice. The appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the scheme was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal held that the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) were not infirm and were hereby upheld. The reasoning was that the impugned additions were made by the AO based on a statement recorded during a search action on third parties, which occurred more than two years prior to the search in the assessee's case. The Tribunal noted that no incriminating material was found during the search conducted in the assessee's own premises on 05.01.2021. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra), which held that in cases of non-abated/completed assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search action. The Tribunal also observed that if incriminating material from the third-party search was linked to the assessee, the proper course would have been to proceed under Section 153C, which was not done. The Ld. DR could not present any distinguishing facts. The operative direction was to uphold the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share transaction. The revenue failed to bring forth contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the levy of surcharge was incorrect. The Tribunal referred to Section 2(29C) which defines 'maximum marginal rate' as the rate of income tax including surcharge, if any, applicable to the highest slab of income. However, it clarified that the Finance Act of the relevant year provides slab rates for income tax and separate rates for surcharge, which are applicable only when the total income exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs. In the present case, the assessee's total income was Rs. 1,27,095/-, which is significantly below the Rs. 50 lakhs threshold for levying surcharge. Therefore, the Tribunal found the view of the lower authorities to be against the law. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer not to levy any surcharge on the income tax as the assessee's income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The issue of Health and Education Cess and interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were implicitly allowed as part of the overall direction to calculate the correct tax liability after deleting the erroneous surcharge.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without examining the merits of the case. For the ends of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, holding that there was no cessation of liability as the assessee had made full or part payments in subsequent financial years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal held that the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) were not infirm and were hereby upheld. The reasoning was that the impugned additions were made by the AO based on a statement recorded during a search action on third parties, which occurred more than two years prior to the search in the assessee's case. The Tribunal noted that no incriminating material was found during the search conducted in the assessee's own premises on 05.01.2021. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra), which held that in cases of non-abated/completed assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search action. The Tribunal also observed that if incriminating material from the third-party search was linked to the assessee, the proper course would have been to proceed under Section 153C, which was not done. The Ld. DR could not present any distinguishing facts. The operative direction was to uphold the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal restored the revenue's appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided along with the assessee's appeal. This was done to ensure consistency with the directions given in the assessee's prior appeal.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits.
The Tribunal held that the commission rate should be 0.15%, aligning with a previous order for a different assessment year and a Bombay High Court judgment. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the commission at 0.15% instead of 1%.
The Tribunal held that the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) were not infirm and were hereby upheld. The reasoning was that the impugned additions were made by the AO based on a statement recorded during a search action on third parties, which occurred more than two years prior to the search in the assessee's case. The Tribunal noted that no incriminating material was found during the search conducted in the assessee's own premises on 05.01.2021. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra), which held that in cases of non-abated/completed assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search action. The Tribunal also observed that if incriminating material from the third-party search was linked to the assessee, the proper course would have been to proceed under Section 153C, which was not done. The Ld. DR could not present any distinguishing facts. The operative direction was to uphold the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO had not commented on these evidences, and the non-appearance of shareholders for summons did not automatically render the transaction bogus.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The primary reasoning was that the Ld. CIT(A) had made a clear finding that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make additions based on post-search inquiries and statements, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). Additionally, the Ld. CIT(A) had observed that the assessment year 2014-15 fell beyond the six assessment years preceding the date of the search, which is the period within which the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to reopen under Section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the assessment had been wrongly reopened by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A. The Tribunal found the facts and circumstances, along with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), to be conclusive and accordingly dismissed the Revenue's appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The ITAT found that the assessee had filed a condonation petition before the CIT(Appeals) which was not considered. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to examine the condonation petition and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present her case and establish her claim.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening the assessment were vague and based on a borrowed satisfaction. The AO lacked tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment, as the information about share trading was already on record.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the cash deposits were adequately explained by the assessee's sales and that there was no abnormal rise in cash sales. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening the assessment were vague and based on a borrowed satisfaction. The AO lacked tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment, as the information about share trading was already on record.
The Tribunal held that in the case of an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can only be made with reference to incriminating materials seized during the search. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the AO had not referred to any incriminating materials found during the search concerning the share capital/premium and the commission paid for arranging entries. The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), which held that in completed/non-abated assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions was upheld. The issues in the other appeals were found to be substantially similar, and the decision in ITA No. 60/Kol/2024 was applied mutatis mutandis. All appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in the case of an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can only be made with reference to incriminating materials seized during the search. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the AO had not referred to any incriminating materials found during the search concerning the share capital/premium and the commission paid for arranging entries. The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), which held that in completed/non-abated assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions was upheld. The issues in the other appeals were found to be substantially similar, and the decision in ITA No. 60/Kol/2024 was applied mutatis mutandis. All appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has not earned any tax-exempt income, then no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. The addition made by the lower authorities was deleted based on this principle.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect was higher or if the case fell under an exception.
The Tribunal held that in the case of an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can only be made with reference to incriminating materials seized during the search. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the AO had not referred to any incriminating materials found during the search concerning the share capital/premium and the commission paid for arranging entries. The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), which held that in completed/non-abated assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions was upheld. The issues in the other appeals were found to be substantially similar, and the decision in ITA No. 60/Kol/2024 was applied mutatis mutandis. All appeals of the revenue were dismissed.