Loading ITAT cases…
256 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's application. The appeal was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details of loan creditors, ledgers, bank statements, and confirmation letters. The CIT(A)'s order was considered in line with the evidence presented, and the revenue's appeal was not found to have sufficient grounds for interference.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details of loan creditors, ledgers, bank statements, and confirmation letters. The CIT(A)'s order was considered in line with the evidence presented, and the revenue's appeal was not found to have sufficient grounds for interference.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte and the AO failed to consider the opening cash balance for AY 2016-17. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for a de novo examination, directing the AO to consider the opening cash in hand and provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it not attributable to the assessee. It was held that the lower authorities failed to examine the evidences submitted by the assessee and relied on a general modus operandi. As the assessee had discharged the burden of furnishing all required documents, the provisions of Section 68 could not be invoked. The addition was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete it.
The Tribunal determined that the appeal's tax effect was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which falls below the monetary limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine, concluding it was contrary to the Department's policy. The Revenue was granted the liberty to apply for a recall of the order if the tax effect was later found to be higher.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the issue of admitting fresh evidence, while not explicitly addressed as a separate point, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had given detailed findings of fact based on the documents provided by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee acted as a CSP agent for the State Bank of India through Save Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The credits in the assessee's account were from Save Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and the withdrawals were made on behalf of the bank for customer transactions. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO incorrectly treated these withdrawals as unexplained money under Section 69A, as the source of money was not disputed and the withdrawals were handled as per the bank's directions. Consequently, the addition of ₹1,93,26,069/- as unexplained money and ₹1,90,269/- as contractual receipt was not maintainable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of both additions.
The Tribunal held that the commission paid, which was subjected to TDS and made through banking channels, could not be doubted merely because summons under Section 131 or notices under Section 133(6) were not complied with. The Tribunal noted that commission payment is a regular phenomenon in the medical business, and the assessee had provided invoices for commission payments specifying sales and orders procured. The Tribunal observed that the commission paid in the current year was in proportion to the higher commission/discount received from suppliers. The Tribunal found that the assessee had been regularly paying commission from the beginning of the business and in subsequent years, and the genuineness of the transactions could not be doubted when all evidence was filed before the authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal quashed the reopening of assessment, holding that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 148(2) were vague, scanty, and lacked independent application of mind, relying on a similar decision by a co-ordinate bench. The legal grounds raised by the assessee regarding the invalidity of the reopening were allowed, rendering other grounds on merits unadjudicated.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. Since the Ld. Assessing Officer had already granted the due relief to the appellant, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was dispatched after the due date, rendering it barred by limitation. Furthermore, the reopening for AY 2015-16 was found to be impermissible in the extended period as per TOLA, 2021. The Tribunal also noted that the reopening after four years did not satisfy the conditions stipulated in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Consequently, the reopening of assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and the revenue's non-opposition to the withdrawal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a liberty granted to the assessee to seek revival of the appeal by filing a necessary miscellaneous application if the assessee's success in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 is not achieved for any reason. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal deleted the first addition, finding that the issue was not part of the limited scrutiny notice (under Section 143(2)) and no approval was obtained to widen the scope. For the second addition, the tribunal found that the assessee had adequate cash balance in their books, supported by evidence of sales, bank withdrawals, and recoveries from debtors, thus deleting this addition as well.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT did not properly examine the assessee's replies and evidence before concluding that the AO's order was erroneous. The PCIT's general observation of lack of inquiry was not sufficient to set aside the assessment order.
Based on the assessee's enrollment in the VSVS 2024 scheme, the Revenue requested permission to withdraw its appeal, which was not opposed by the assessee's representative. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it. Reviewing the affidavits, the Tribunal found valid reasons for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A), including the death of the director and communication issues. The ITAT ruled that appeals should be decided on merits, not in limine, and thus set aside the CIT(A) orders, remitting the cases back for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including PANs, bank statements, audited accounts, and justification for the funds (property purchase, bank loan margin money), to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the AO and CIT(A) had cryptically upheld the addition without proper consideration of the evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition of ₹69 lacs.
Accepting the request from the assessee's counsel, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that if the company was indeed struck off before the Section 148 notice, the assessment proceedings would be invalid. The quantum assessment appeals (ITA Nos. 783 & 784/KOL/2024) were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication to verify this fresh evidence. Consequently, the penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 781 & 782/KOL/2024) were allowed as they abated due to the restoration of the quantum matters.
The Tribunal noted that if the company was indeed struck off before the Section 148 notice, the assessment proceedings would be invalid. The quantum assessment appeals (ITA Nos. 783 & 784/KOL/2024) were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication to verify this fresh evidence. Consequently, the penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 781 & 782/KOL/2024) were allowed as they abated due to the restoration of the quantum matters.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the request for withdrawal made by the assessee's counsel. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that if the company was indeed struck off before the Section 148 notice, the assessment proceedings would be invalid. The quantum assessment appeals (ITA Nos. 783 & 784/KOL/2024) were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication to verify this fresh evidence. Consequently, the penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 781 & 782/KOL/2024) were allowed as they abated due to the restoration of the quantum matters.
The Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive it by filing a miscellaneous application if the VSVS-24 scheme is not successful for any reason.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the low tax effect. The assessee's Cross Objection was also dismissed as withdrawn based on the request of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of cooperation and the late submission of documents. While acknowledging the reasonable basis for the 1% estimation by the AO, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue of share transactions to the AO for fresh examination. The assessee was directed to produce directors of the involved companies and their clients for verification.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was valid as the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law is applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the disallowance made on merits, based on the Supreme Court's decision, was sustained.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A), decided to grant one more opportunity in the interest of justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not made any claim under Section 54 of the Act in the filed return. Consequently, an adjustment or disallowance under Section 143(1)(a) regarding a claim not made by the assessee was deemed inadmissible and was deleted. The CIT(A)'s decision was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of a technical error in selecting the wrong section code, when the assessee had subsequently clarified the inadvertent mistake, was mechanical. The CIT (Exemption) ought to have provided an opportunity for correction.
The Tribunal held that the doctrine of merger did not apply as the additions made in the 143(1) intimation were not reversed or adjudicated upon in the 143(3) assessment order. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. The Revenue was given liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if facts warrant reconsideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits from cash sales, and there was no legal prohibition on receiving Specified Bank Notes until December 31, 2016. Relying on a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal ruled that the addition under Section 69A was not valid.
The Tribunal found that there was no legal restriction on holding or receiving Specified Bank Notes until 31.12.2016, even though they ceased to be legal tender from 08.11.2016. Since the assessee provided sales ledgers and the revenue authorities did not dispute the source of the cash from liquor sales, the addition made under Section 69A was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal relied on a similar decision by the ITAT Visakhapatnam bench.
The ITAT noted that the original revision order under Section 263, which was the foundation for the consequential assessment order, had already been quashed by the Tribunal in a separate appeal. Since the basis for the impugned order no longer existed and the CIT(A) had granted relief, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice, remitting the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the 115-day delay in one appeal due to plausible reasons of financial hardship. Emphasizing natural justice, the Tribunal set aside all impugned orders and restored all 18 appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessees a fresh opportunity to present their cases. This remand is conditional upon the assessees paying specified costs to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s orders will be confirmed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of representation and compliance by the assessees before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While agreeing with the Revenue that fresh evidence should not typically be entertained at the Tribunal level, the Bench emphasized the paramount importance of natural justice. Considering that in some cases, there were claims of inadequate opportunities and sketchy presentation of facts, and to ensure a fair adjudication, the Tribunal decided to restore all the issues in these 18 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision is subject to the assessees paying a consolidated cost, with specific amounts levied for each appeal, to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, contingent on the payment of costs.
The Tribunal condoned the 115-day delay in one appeal due to plausible reasons of financial hardship. Emphasizing natural justice, the Tribunal set aside all impugned orders and restored all 18 appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessees a fresh opportunity to present their cases. This remand is conditional upon the assessees paying specified costs to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s orders will be confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the 115-day delay in one appeal due to plausible reasons of financial hardship. Emphasizing natural justice, the Tribunal set aside all impugned orders and restored all 18 appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessees a fresh opportunity to present their cases. This remand is conditional upon the assessees paying specified costs to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s orders will be confirmed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of representation and compliance by the assessees before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While agreeing with the Revenue that fresh evidence should not typically be entertained at the Tribunal level, the Bench emphasized the paramount importance of natural justice. Considering that in some cases, there were claims of inadequate opportunities and sketchy presentation of facts, and to ensure a fair adjudication, the Tribunal decided to restore all the issues in these 18 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision is subject to the assessees paying a consolidated cost, with specific amounts levied for each appeal, to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, contingent on the payment of costs.
The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of representation and compliance by the assessees before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While agreeing with the Revenue that fresh evidence should not typically be entertained at the Tribunal level, the Bench emphasized the paramount importance of natural justice. Considering that in some cases, there were claims of inadequate opportunities and sketchy presentation of facts, and to ensure a fair adjudication, the Tribunal decided to restore all the issues in these 18 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision is subject to the assessees paying a consolidated cost, with specific amounts levied for each appeal, to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, contingent on the payment of costs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the Revenue did not appear. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide another opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of representation and compliance by the assessees before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While agreeing with the Revenue that fresh evidence should not typically be entertained at the Tribunal level, the Bench emphasized the paramount importance of natural justice. Considering that in some cases, there were claims of inadequate opportunities and sketchy presentation of facts, and to ensure a fair adjudication, the Tribunal decided to restore all the issues in these 18 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision is subject to the assessees paying a consolidated cost, with specific amounts levied for each appeal, to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, contingent on the payment of costs.
Both appeals were dismissed. ITA 1846 was dismissed as time-barred due to unsubstantiated reasons for the 465-day delay and also deemed unmaintainable before the Tribunal, as an appeal against an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 lies with the CIT(A). ITA 1847 was also dismissed on merits, as the adjournment request was rejected for identical unsubstantiated reasons, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld due to the assessee's failure to produce cogent evidence.
The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of representation and compliance by the assessees before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While agreeing with the Revenue that fresh evidence should not typically be entertained at the Tribunal level, the Bench emphasized the paramount importance of natural justice. Considering that in some cases, there were claims of inadequate opportunities and sketchy presentation of facts, and to ensure a fair adjudication, the Tribunal decided to restore all the issues in these 18 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision is subject to the assessees paying a consolidated cost, with specific amounts levied for each appeal, to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, contingent on the payment of costs.
The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of representation and compliance by the assessees before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While agreeing with the Revenue that fresh evidence should not typically be entertained at the Tribunal level, the Bench emphasized the paramount importance of natural justice. Considering that in some cases, there were claims of inadequate opportunities and sketchy presentation of facts, and to ensure a fair adjudication, the Tribunal decided to restore all the issues in these 18 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision is subject to the assessees paying a consolidated cost, with specific amounts levied for each appeal, to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, contingent on the payment of costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the investment in property was made from funds obtained through the sale of shares. It noted that the department did not raise specific grounds regarding fresh evidence or denial of opportunity to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the claim for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is allowable to the assessee. The reasoning was based on the fact that Form No. 67 was filed along with the return of income, and the filing of this form is considered directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as they are more beneficial to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that Rule 128(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, does not preclude the assessee from claiming FTC in case of delayed filing of Form No. 67, as the credit for FTC is a vested right. Since Form No. 67 was filed along with the return and was available at the time of processing under Section 143(1)(a), there was no justification for not allowing the credit. The Tribunal respectfully followed its own previous decisions and those of coordinate benches, directing the Assessing Officer to allow the FTC in accordance with the DTAA between India and the USA and the law. Grounds 1, 2, and 3 of the appeal were allowed. Grounds 4, 5, and 6 were considered submissions, and Ground 7 was general, requiring no separate adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that penalty proceedings are a consequence of assessment proceedings. Since the quantum appeal was pending, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication along with the pending quantum appeal.