Loading ITAT cases…
220 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as it did not fall within any exceptions mentioned in the CBDT circular. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as infructuous.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal noted that appeals are deemed withdrawn as per Section 91(2) and (3) of the Scheme upon filing of declaration, and granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration via a Miscellaneous Application if needed.
The Tribunal, referring to co-ordinate bench decisions, held that the filing of Form 10B is directory and delay can be condoned. It directed the AO to allow the exemption under Section 11, restoring the case to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that a later CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the due date for Section 80G(5)(iii) applications to 30.06.2024, and the assessee's counsel argued that the system did not permit filing a fresh application once one was already submitted. Considering the facts and in the interests of justice, the Tribunal remanded the entire issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(Exemptions) for reconsideration and re-examination after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal, acknowledging the settlement under the DTVSV scheme, and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the mandatory approval under Section 151 before issuing the reassessment notice under Section 148. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings, including the base assessment order, the revision order under Section 263, and the consequential assessment order under Section 143(3), were declared void ab initio and quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the loans were repaid in subsequent years and accepted in prior/subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had elected for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration if subsequent facts warranted a hearing on merits.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect in the revenue's appeal was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed in limine. The Tribunal added that the revenue could apply for a recall of the order if the tax effect was later found to be higher or if the appeal was otherwise maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the loans were repaid in subsequent years and accepted in prior/subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal, noting no objection from the DR, accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, as the assessee chose to settle the dispute under the DTVSV scheme.
The Tribunal confirmed that the tax effect was indeed below Rs.60 lacs and that the revenue's appeal did not fall under any exceptions specified in the CBDT circulars. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, and the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that substantial expansion under Section 80IE does not mandate completion within the same financial year it is initiated. It also ruled that plant and machinery used in agricultural operations or administrative purposes are eligible for inclusion in the calculation of substantial expansion.
The Tribunal noted that as per the scheme and relevant guidance, appeals are deemed withdrawn upon issuance of the certificate. The assessee requested withdrawal, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not calling for a remand report under Section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act when new documents were presented by the assessee during appellate proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, providing both parties an opportunity to be heard and consider all documents. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as no specific grievance was raised against the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce supporting documents before the CIT(A). In the interests of justice and fair play, the Tribunal remanded the entire issue back to the CIT(A), directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, verify the submitted documents, and then pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT was invalid. The assessment framed under Section 147 was also challenged as invalid due to procedural defects in the notice.
The Tribunal noted that some documents were filed for the first time before it. While the AR argued that directors would appear before the AO, the Tribunal found merit in the AO's contention regarding the company's low income and turnover. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh examination of all material, including the examination of the Directors.
The CIT(A) allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding the transactions. The Tribunal directed the AO to pass an order expeditiously in light of the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal, relying on a recent Calcutta High Court judgment (Fastner Commodeal Pvt. Ltd.), held that the non-filing of Form 10IC was an inadvertent procedural error. It directed the case to be restored to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to file Form 10IC and then consider the relief under Section 115BAA, provided all other requisite conditions are met.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of expenditure towards travelling and conveyance, finding that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal also found no merit in the revenue's appeal concerning the deduction under Section 80IE, noting that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions and did not furnish supporting documents, leading to an ex-parte order. However, to ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remand the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of a communication gap leading to non-receipt of notices and thus no opportunity of hearing. Recognizing that the additions involved issues of fact that could be decided on merits, the ITAT remanded the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the 33-day delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the assessee possesses considerable documentation, the Tribunal remanded the matter of the Rs. 20,11,000/- addition back to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine whether part of the amount was deposited pre-demonetization and if there's adequate justification for the source of the entire addition, providing ample opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act before finalizing the reassessment. Consequently, the additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal found the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) condonable, acknowledging the assessee's argument of late order receipt. It remanded the quantum assessment (ITA No. 1989/Kol/2024) back to the AO for fresh adjudication with full opportunity for the assessee. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) (ITA No. 1990/Kol/2024) was deleted, with liberty for the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if additions are sustained.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek its revival by filing a miscellaneous application if the VSVS 2024 Scheme resolution is unsuccessful for any reason. This dismissal is contingent on the VSVS scheme requiring the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal found the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) condonable, acknowledging the assessee's argument of late order receipt. It remanded the quantum assessment (ITA No. 1989/Kol/2024) back to the AO for fresh adjudication with full opportunity for the assessee. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) (ITA No. 1990/Kol/2024) was deleted, with liberty for the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if additions are sustained.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, the appeal has become infructuous and needs to be withdrawn. The Tribunal referred to S. No. 10 of the Guidance Note 1/2024 on the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, which states that appeals before the ITAT are deemed to be withdrawn from the date of issue of the certificate by the Designated Authority, as per Section 91(2) of the Scheme. Furthermore, Section 91(3) requires the taxpayer to withdraw appeals and furnish proof. As the assessee requested withdrawal and the Ld. DR did not object, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal also noted that if subsequent facts warrant a hearing on merits, the assessee is at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration of the appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not considered several legal grounds challenging the AO's jurisdiction and the validity of the Section 143(2) notice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide these revised grounds of appeal after providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and potentially obtain a remand report.
The Tribunal held that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under Section 148 cannot be issued, meaning no reassessment proceedings can be initiated as long as original assessment proceedings based on the return are not terminated. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal found the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment under Section 147 to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 46A by not considering the additional evidence on merits. The matter is restored to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the additional evidence and decide the appeal, including legal/jurisdictional grounds, on merits by way of a speaking order, potentially after obtaining a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the disputed tax effect, reported as Rs.7,97,220/-, was below the monetary limit of Rs.60.00 lakhs for filing appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. The Tribunal clarified that the issues raised are left open for examination in appropriate future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 2(22)(e) was not justified as the transactions were in the normal course of business. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow the deduction under Section 80IA based on market rates, as claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that a mere decline in GP ratio, when adequately explained by an increase in input costs (power and manganese ore) and an increase in profit per metric ton, cannot be a sole basis to reject books of account. The AO had also failed to invoke Section 145(3) of the Act or identify comparable cases to justify the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law, quashing it. Regarding the deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e), the Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds concerning the nature of transactions and settlement at year-end were not pressed. However, the revenue's grounds challenging the restriction of the addition were also not pressed. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 9,01,00,000/- made by the CIT(A) was upheld, but the assessment order itself was quashed on other grounds. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to Section 80-IA. It found that both lower authorities failed to consider the revised return filed by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. to hold that the market value of power supplied by the State Electricity Board to industrial consumers should be considered for computing the deduction. The CIT(A) had also agreed with this approach. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the rates charged by the Electricity Board to other industrial undertakings and allow the deduction accordingly. The additional grounds of appeal regarding FMS and education cess were dismissed as not pressed. The ratio is that a revised return, if filed correctly, must be considered, and for Section 80-IA deductions, the market value of electricity supplied by the State Electricity Board to industrial consumers is the relevant benchmark.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of cooperation with the lower authorities but, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to restore the matter to the file of the Learned CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the case afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned a 35-day delay in filing the appeal. It allowed the assessee's claim regarding disallowance for transport payments where individual payments were below Rs. 50,000. For the remaining disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) concerning transport charges, the matter was remitted back to the AO to examine the applicability of the 30% disallowance limit introduced by the Finance Act, 2014.
The ITAT held that mentioning a wrong section in an application is a rectifiable mistake and the assessee should not be penalized for such an oversight. Following a precedent, the ITAT remanded the case back to the CIT (Exemption) to consider the assessee's application on merits for granting the exemption.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 51 days, finding 'reasonable cause' based on the Supreme Court decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji. The substantive issue on merits was remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to provide a proper email ID and remain vigilant.
The Tribunal held that addition under Section 68 cannot be made solely on the ground of non-compliance with summons if the assessee and subscribers have provided all necessary evidence proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. The CIT(A)'s order, which accepted the assessee's evidence, was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities fall under 'relief of the poor' and even if they involve commercial aspects, exemption under section 11 is permissible as per CBDT circulars and previous decisions of the Tribunal in similar cases for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CPC was not justified in disallowing the Section 80P deduction for A.Y. 2018-19 because the amendment to Section 143(1)(a), which granted CPC the power to make such disallowances for belated returns, came into effect only from A.Y. 2021-22. Relying on a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal reversed the lower authorities' order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were invalid, concluding that the Assessing Officer acted on 'borrowed satisfaction' without independent application of mind or tangible material. The AO failed to identify the specific company providing the alleged sum or verify the assessee's explanations. The reopening, initiated after four years, was quashed as there was no observation of the assessee failing to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding the assessee deserved a chance to establish their case. It remanded all three appeals, including the penalty issues, back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to appear earlier and the inability to establish the three ingredients of Section 68. However, considering the High Court's direction and the assessee's undertaking to cooperate, the matter is remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The assessee's appeal was allowed to be withdrawn considering their application and the circumstances explained regarding the extension of the due date for filing Form No.10AB.
The Tribunal found that the AO's order lacked substantial assistance from the assessee and the CIT(A) relied heavily on the AO's findings without a thorough examination. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing to consider the explanation regarding capital gains and verify the balance sheet entries for the investment addition.
The Tribunal found that the proceedings for the same Assessment Year (2015-16) had already been disposed of by a previous ITAT order (ITA Nos. 1351 & 1352/Kol/2023 dated 20.05.2024). Consequently, the present appeal was deemed infructuous and was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding the assessee deserved a chance to establish their case. It remanded all three appeals, including the penalty issues, back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.