Loading ITAT cases…
259 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report (Form 10B) before one month from the due date of filing the return of income is not mandatory for claiming exemption under Sections 11 & 12. The assessee is entitled to claim exemption even if filed at a later stage.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of over 22 months, considering the pandemic and lockdown as sufficient cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no merit in the assessee's appeal. It relied on various judicial pronouncements that confirmed additions in similar cases of pre-arranged transactions in penny stocks.
The Tribunal set aside the learned CIT(Appeals)'s ex-parte order, remitting the matter back to the learned CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing. It directed the learned CIT(Appeals) to grant another opportunity to the assessee, cautioning the assessee to cooperate, failing which the CIT(A) may pass an order based on available records.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned appellate order from NFAC was a duplication of the earlier order passed by the CIT(Appeals). Due to miscommunication, the NFAC passed the order erroneously. Therefore, the assessment order passed by NFAC was set aside.
The ITAT found that the 12-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was due to the negligence of the assessee's former advocate and not due to the assessee's own negligence. The ITAT condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeal on its merits, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that since the incriminating material was found in the possession of a third party, proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act were applicable, not Section 147. The initiation of proceedings under Section 147 was therefore void ab initio.
The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to the delay, finding that the assessee failed to establish a reasonable cause for condonation. The Tribunal, however, found that the delay occurred due to wrong advice from the authorized representative and condoned the delay.
The Tribunal held that the consideration for the transfer of a capital asset is what the transferor receives, not its market value. Therefore, the full value of consideration received should be used for computing capital gains/loss, and indexation should be allowed on the accepted cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide complete details of the shell company and the transaction date. In the absence of primary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was without proper appreciation of facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide any valid explanation for the cash deposits in the bank account despite ample opportunities. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was due to COVID-19 pandemic and acute illness of family members of the assessee. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the IBC override the Income Tax Act, and once a resolution plan is approved, all prior claims, including statutory dues, are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals could not continue.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the IBC override the Income Tax Act, and once a resolution plan is approved, all prior claims, including statutory dues, are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals could not continue.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of a deceased person, who had died before the notice was issued. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Savita Kapila vs. ACIT.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the IBC override the Income Tax Act, and once a resolution plan is approved, all prior claims, including statutory dues, are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals could not continue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 293 days in filing the appeal, finding that the reasons explained by the assessee were reasonable and administrative in nature, with no deliberate attempt to delay. The Tribunal acknowledged that although the assessee failed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without going into the merits of the case, which was deemed improper. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to comply with notices issued in the remand proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the IBC override the Income Tax Act, and once a resolution plan is approved, all prior claims, including statutory dues, are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals could not continue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and not dismissed the appeal on a technical ground, especially since the assessment order was ex parte. The Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO and remit the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision, directing that the assessee be given another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, while considering the rival submissions and perusing the record, noted that the required vouchers/evidences were not before the Assessing Officer, leading to disallowances for non-deduction of TDS and non-production of bills. The assessee's representative argued that TDS was either not warranted or the payees had already included the income in their returns and paid taxes, and that supporting vouchers were available. In the interest of justice and to allow the assessee to substantiate claims with sufficient evidence, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO. All issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the evidence filed by the assessee, including whether payees had paid taxes on the income and other evidence justifying the expenditure. A further opportunity of hearing was to be granted. If the assessee's explanation or evidence was not satisfactory, the additions and disallowances confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) would stand. Ground No. 7, concerning the addition from other sources, was partly allowed for statistical purposes, as relief on a Rs. 2,00,000/- addition under Section 68 was granted by the Ld. CIT(A), leaving only Rs. 18,117/- unadjudicated. All other grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal considered the submission and the lack of opposition from the Departmental Representative. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to revive it if unsuccessful under the VSVS Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. Considering the submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to revive it if not successful under the VSVS Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) passed the order ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating the principle of natural justice. The order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide a cogent reason for estimating the net profit at 1.1% and the CIT(A) upheld this without independent analysis. Therefore, the Tribunal restricted the net profit estimation to 0.6% of the turnover.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide a cogent reason for estimating the net profit at 1.1% and the CIT(A) upheld this without independent analysis. Therefore, the Tribunal restricted the net profit estimation to 0.6% of the turnover.
The ITAT noted that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, confirming the AO's order without discussing the merits. In the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee another opportunity to be heard, as the appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to non-receipt of notice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 143 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time due to the circumstances of its company being struck off and subsequent challenges in compliance. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) to meet the principle of natural justice and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal cautioned the assessee to promptly cooperate with the proceedings before the CIT(A), failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order based on available materials. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The issue of the merits of the assessment was not decided by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal observed that the AO passed the order without the assessee's presence and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a decision on merits due to non-compliance. To provide an opportunity to the assessee, the appeal was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural irregularity and not a mandatory condition, citing previous pronouncements. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to consider all documentary evidence and legal issues, including the non-disposal of the objection against the notice under Section 148.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. It remitted certain issues back to the AO for verification, particularly concerning double additions and the need to verify the assessee's computation of income. Some disallowances were also reduced.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. Issues related to double additions were remitted back to the AO for verification. Certain disallowances were reduced, while others were confirmed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. Certain additions were directed to be verified by the AO, and some disallowances were reduced. The issue of duplicate additions was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1722 days in filing the appeal. It reasoned that the delay was due to the assessee's counsel's wrong advice and was beyond the assessee's control, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's observations in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, highlighting that refusing to condone delay can defeat the cause of justice and that a litigant does not benefit from delay. On the merits, the Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the AO had examined the Long-Term Capital Gain claim thoroughly, considering the purchase agreement date, possession date, and payments made. The PCIT's view that the acquisition date should be the registration date was not accepted. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, stating that for invoking Section 263, the assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Since these conditions were not met, the revisionary jurisdiction was wrongly exercised. The Tribunal also found that the assessee correctly calculated the Long-Term Capital Gain by taking the date of possession as the acquisition date. Consequently, the revisionary order passed by the PCIT was quashed.
The Tribunal held that there was a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the official who provided the adverse information from NMCE. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was not delayed, as it was filed based on the certified copy of the assessment order dated 26.05.2016. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal filed based on a certified copy of an order, if within the prescribed period from the date of that certified copy, should not be dismissed for delay without proper consideration of the facts. The operative direction is to restore the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's explanation about the non-service of notices and the shift in address. The Tribunal observed that the assessment was done ex-parte without proper adjudication on merits and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delays in filing the appeals, finding the reasons to be bona fide and sufficient. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.
The Tribunal, upon hearing the submissions and perusing the orders of the lower authorities, noted that the assessment was made due to the assessee's non-compliance, and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for similar reasons. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the appeals back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings. The orders passed by both the AO and the CIT(A) were set aside. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that the substantive issues were not decided on merits at this stage.
The Tribunal held that a perusal of the satisfaction note and the CIT(A)'s order confirmed that no incriminating material was found for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, no assessment u/s 153C could be made.
The tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to pass an afresh order after obtaining a report from the DVO regarding the difference in purchase stamp value, thereby setting aside the earlier orders of the AO and CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the exemption under Section 54EC as both investments were made within six months from the date of transfer. The proviso limiting investment to Rs. 50 lakhs per financial year was clarified by subsequent amendments, and prior to that, investments split across two financial years within the six-month period were permissible.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee on both legal and merit grounds. Regarding the legal issues, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's challenge was against the order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263, not the original Section 147 assessment order, and the assessee had complied with the proceedings. On the merits of the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished substantial evidence, including confirmations from subscribers, ITRs, audited financials of subscribers, bank statements, and MCA data. Notices under Section 133(6) were complied with during the original assessment. The Tribunal held that the addition could not be made solely on the ground of non-compliance with Section 131 summons, especially when Section 133(6) notices were complied with and the assessee had provided all necessary documents. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Sreeleathers, which held that an order is perverse if it ignores duly acknowledged notices and confirmed transactions. The Tribunal further noted that the proviso to Section 68 was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2013, making it inapplicable to AY 2008-09, and that the revenue cannot add share capital to the assessee's income if shareholders are bogus; instead, it should proceed against the shareholders. The Tribunal concluded that the share subscribers had adequate sources and paid through banking channels, and the addition was made without the authorities carrying out independent investigation or pointing out defects in the provided evidence. The ratio decidendi is that when an assessee provides substantial documentary evidence for share capital and the revenue fails to conduct independent investigation or point out specific deficiencies, additions under Section 68 solely based on non-compliance with Section 131 summons are unsustainable, especially when Section 133(6) notices were complied with and other evidence was provided.
The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the AO's capital gain calculation and the failure to refer the property for valuation by a Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 55A. It also noted a potential violation of natural justice. The ITAT set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the AO for proper verification and fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing ITA No. 963/Kol/2024, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bona fide and sufficient, citing Supreme Court decisions that emphasize the cause of delay over its length. The Tribunal admitted the appeal for adjudication. Furthermore, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, comprising details of investment in RBI bonds, balance sheets, ledgers, passbook copies, and bank confirmations. Considering these documents essential for correct adjudication, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the additional evidence and decide the issue of investment in RBI bonds accordingly. For ITA No. 261/Kol/2024, the Tribunal, after hearing both parties, opined that the matter, including the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and the ex-parte order of the CIT(A), required fresh examination. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo examination. ITA No. 314/Kol/2017 was decided mutatis mutandis with ITA No. 963/Kol/2024, also being restored to the AO. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, upon hearing the submissions and perusing the orders of the lower authorities, noted that the assessment was made due to the assessee's non-compliance, and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for similar reasons. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the appeals back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings. The orders passed by both the AO and the CIT(A) were set aside. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that the substantive issues were not decided on merits at this stage.