Loading ITAT cases…
191 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the notice was sent to the wrong email address, and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from providing details to the AO. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication. The penalty appeal was dismissed as it would not survive if the quantum appeal was restored.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee's income is entirely exempt due to its registration as a Provident Fund trust. It found that the misreporting of dividend income was a factual mistake, and the disallowance by the AO and affirmation by the CIT(A) were incorrect and contrary to the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the notice was sent to the wrong email address, and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from providing details to the AO. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication. The penalty appeal was dismissed as it would not survive if the quantum appeal was restored.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing him to examine the directors of both the assessee and the subscribing company. The AO is to decide the issue de novo based on statements and any other evidence produced by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the view taken by the AO and CIT(A) was contradictory to the facts on record, as the loans were from closely related persons and the assessee had provided copies of the lenders' ITRs. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT (Exemptions) acknowledged the assessee as an old assessee engaged in charitable activities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT (Exemptions) to provide the assessee an opportunity to rectify its application by citing the correct section and to specify any other defects.
The tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating it was not issued in accordance with CBDT instructions. The tribunal held that the notice was invalid, making the assessment framed thereunder void ab initio.
The tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating it was not issued in accordance with CBDT instructions. The tribunal held that the notice was invalid, making the assessment framed thereunder void ab initio.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT (Exemptions) acknowledged the assessee as an old assessee engaged in charitable activities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT (Exemptions) to provide the assessee an opportunity to rectify its application by citing the correct section and to specify any other defects.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to substantiate its case. This was done after considering the assessee's non-appearance and the factual nature of the issues.
The tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating it was not issued in accordance with CBDT instructions. The tribunal held that the notice was invalid, making the assessment framed thereunder void ab initio.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning correct, noting that some additions were based on wrong facts or would lead to double taxation, and the assessee had provided adequate explanations and reconciliations for the disputed amounts.
The Tribunal found that the land in question was agricultural, located more than 32 km from the municipal limit, and thus not subject to capital gains. It also noted issues with the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and the definition of 'transfer' under Section 2(47). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment was invalid as the AO did not conduct independent verification of the information received from the Investigation Wing and did not provide a speaking order detailing how the addition was computed. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was found to be reasoned and speaking.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was invalid as it was unsigned, both digitally and manually, violating CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal followed its co-ordinate benches' decisions in the assessee's own cases for subsequent years, which upheld the CIT(A)'s view of fixing the commission at 0.15%. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) was invalid because the proper course of action, given the incriminating material found during a third-party search, should have been u/s 153C, which is a special provision. Therefore, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts by the AO was not justified. Consequently, the addition based on the estimation of profit at 5% was deleted. However, the addition for outstanding liabilities was sustained due to the assessee's failure to provide explanations and evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to a lack of a valid notice and that the addition under Section 69A was not applicable as the assessee was a borrower, not the owner of the money. Furthermore, the addition was based on suspicion without independent application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn with a liberty to revive it if the DTVSV scheme declaration is not ultimately settled. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The case was remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing and for the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings, so a fresh order on merits could be passed.
The Tribunal held that disallowing foreign tax credit solely on the technicality of delayed filing of Form 67 is not justified, especially when the assessee is entitled to claim FTC under the DTAA. The AO and CIT(A) erred in not granting the credit.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the commodity profits and the set-off of speculation loss (Issues 1 & 2): The Tribunal noted that the AO treated the commodity income as bogus because the exchange confirmed the transactions were not carried out on their platform. However, the assessee had submitted contract notes from the broker showing transactions using the platform of the Indian Commodity Exchange of India Limited (ICEX) and had set off earlier speculation loss. The Tribunal, in its detailed discussion for AY 2014-15, found that the commodity profit added by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2015-16. The reasoning for deletion was based on the fact that the AO himself had confirmed that the exchange informed that such transactions were not carried out on their platform, which was an essential ingredient to invoke Section 43(5) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided contract notes and broker ledgers, and that off-market transactions do not necessarily need to be reported to the exchange. Regarding the addition under Section 56(2) for amounts received from father's HUF and Aakash Sureka Educational Trust (Issue 3): For the amount received from the father's HUF (AY 2014-15), the judgment does not explicitly record a separate finding, but it is implied that the decision on the trust amount would guide the outcome. For the amount received from Aakash Sureka Educational Trust (AY 2015-16), the Tribunal found that the deed of trust was made by the assessee's mother. The Tribunal relied on the decision in ACIT vs. Mrs. Sandhya A Pratap, which held that amounts received on dissolution of a trust cannot be termed as received without consideration. The Tribunal noted that the trust had filed its return and paid taxes on the income earned, and the amount transferred to the beneficiary had already been subjected to taxation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. Operative Directions: The additions related to commodity profits and amounts received from the Aakash Sureka Educational Trust were deleted. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the commodity profits and the set-off of speculation loss (Issues 1 & 2): The Tribunal noted that the AO treated the commodity income as bogus because the exchange confirmed the transactions were not carried out on their platform. However, the assessee had submitted contract notes from the broker showing transactions using the platform of the Indian Commodity Exchange of India Limited (ICEX) and had set off earlier speculation loss. The Tribunal, in its detailed discussion for AY 2014-15, found that the commodity profit added by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2015-16. The reasoning for deletion was based on the fact that the AO himself had confirmed that the exchange informed that such transactions were not carried out on their platform, which was an essential ingredient to invoke Section 43(5) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided contract notes and broker ledgers, and that off-market transactions do not necessarily need to be reported to the exchange. Regarding the addition under Section 56(2) for amounts received from father's HUF and Aakash Sureka Educational Trust (Issue 3): For the amount received from the father's HUF (AY 2014-15), the judgment does not explicitly record a separate finding, but it is implied that the decision on the trust amount would guide the outcome. For the amount received from Aakash Sureka Educational Trust (AY 2015-16), the Tribunal found that the deed of trust was made by the assessee's mother. The Tribunal relied on the decision in ACIT vs. Mrs. Sandhya A Pratap, which held that amounts received on dissolution of a trust cannot be termed as received without consideration. The Tribunal noted that the trust had filed its return and paid taxes on the income earned, and the amount transferred to the beneficiary had already been subjected to taxation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. Operative Directions: The additions related to commodity profits and amounts received from the Aakash Sureka Educational Trust were deleted. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the commodity profits and the set-off of speculation loss (Issues 1 & 2): The Tribunal noted that the AO treated the commodity income as bogus because the exchange confirmed the transactions were not carried out on their platform. However, the assessee had submitted contract notes from the broker showing transactions using the platform of the Indian Commodity Exchange of India Limited (ICEX) and had set off earlier speculation loss. The Tribunal, in its detailed discussion for AY 2014-15, found that the commodity profit added by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2015-16. The reasoning for deletion was based on the fact that the AO himself had confirmed that the exchange informed that such transactions were not carried out on their platform, which was an essential ingredient to invoke Section 43(5) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided contract notes and broker ledgers, and that off-market transactions do not necessarily need to be reported to the exchange. Regarding the addition under Section 56(2) for amounts received from father's HUF and Aakash Sureka Educational Trust (Issue 3): For the amount received from the father's HUF (AY 2014-15), the judgment does not explicitly record a separate finding, but it is implied that the decision on the trust amount would guide the outcome. For the amount received from Aakash Sureka Educational Trust (AY 2015-16), the Tribunal found that the deed of trust was made by the assessee's mother. The Tribunal relied on the decision in ACIT vs. Mrs. Sandhya A Pratap, which held that amounts received on dissolution of a trust cannot be termed as received without consideration. The Tribunal noted that the trust had filed its return and paid taxes on the income earned, and the amount transferred to the beneficiary had already been subjected to taxation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. Operative Directions: The additions related to commodity profits and amounts received from the Aakash Sureka Educational Trust were deleted. The appeals were partly allowed.
The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's submission of additional evidence and its prayer for an opportunity to present its case on merits. The tribunal restored the appeal to the Ld. CIT(E), directing a fresh order on merit after providing the assessee a full opportunity to plead its case and consider the documents filed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after noting it was due to a bonafide mistake in calculation. It was held that the appeals before the lower authorities were decided ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that both the AO's and Ld. CIT(A)'s orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. Recognizing the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to present documentary evidence, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remitted the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's submission of additional evidence and its prayer for an opportunity to present its case on merits. The tribunal restored the appeal to the Ld. CIT(E), directing a fresh order on merit after providing the assessee a full opportunity to plead its case and consider the documents filed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal finding the reasons genuine. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal based on a misunderstanding of the assessee's engagement with the VSVS scheme. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the DTVSV scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. It relied on a previous decision of a coordinate bench which held that Section 80IE does not mandate that substantial expansion must be completed within the same financial year. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment and allowance of the Section 80IE deduction were upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's counsel's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to pass a reasoned order after giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal finding the reasons genuine. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal based on a misunderstanding of the assessee's engagement with the VSVS scheme. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's application by the Ld. CIT(E) solely on the ground of selecting the wrong section code in Form 10AB was a technical mistake. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied afresh under clause 80G(v)(iii) in Form 10AB on 10.01.2025. Citing the decision in ITA No. 1553/Del/2024 in the case of Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust, where a similar technical mistake was considered curable and the matter was remanded, the ITAT restored the case to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to pass a fresh order granting registration after curing the defects as per law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as requested by the assessee and not opposed by the Ld. DR. The assessee was granted the liberty to revive the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 is unsuccessful for any reason.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted the assessee the liberty to revive the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application, in case the assessee is not successful in the VSVS-24 scheme for any reason.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed by Section 144C(13). Following the Madras High Court's decision in Ramco Cement Ltd., the date of uploading the DRP's order is considered the date of receipt by the AO.
The Tribunal observed that there was no proper compliance by the assessee before either the Ld. AO or the Ld. CIT(A). To ensure justice and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal set aside both the CIT(A)'s order and the AO's assessment order, remitting the case back to the AO for a de novo reassessment.
The Tribunal found that crucial documents like complete bills and details of capital introduction were not provided to the lower authorities. Therefore, both the orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1) was invalid as no prior intimation was issued to the assessee. It also noted that the disallowance of exemption for late filing of Form 10B might be incorrect as the requirement could be directory.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and passed without adjudication on merit. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit after hearing the assessee, and the assessee was directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, appeals before the Tribunal must have a monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/-. Since the tax effect in this case was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already gone into the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive it if unsuccessful in the scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, finding no infirmity in the order. It noted that the transaction between the assessee and its sister concern (M/s Tarai Transport Corporation) was a reimbursement through banking channels, not a loan, and was covered by previous judgments of the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court in the sister concern's favour for similar issues.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, appeals before the Tribunal must have a monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/-. Since the tax effect in this case was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not strictly comply with the AO's requests for documents during assessment proceedings. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the case to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to file additional evidence and then pass a fresh and reasoned order after considering such evidence.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) violated Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.