Loading ITAT cases…
259 orders · Page 2 of 6
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 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 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 held that merely filing income tax details, share application forms, bank details, and creditworthiness information of share applicants is insufficient to discharge the onus under Section 68. The financial health of the assessee and inadequate discharge of onus confirmed the addition.
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 observed that the application was dismissed in limine due to non-compliance. However, it held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case. Thus, the appeal was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.
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 allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and directing the AO to delete the addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee sold shares of M/s Right Choice Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. and M/s SRDB Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Regius Barter Pvt. Ltd. during FY 2019-20. The Tribunal found that these investments were made in earlier years and were not disputed by the department then. The transactions were conducted through banking channels. The Tribunal relied on the decision in M/s Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, which held that retracted statements cannot be the sole basis for additions and that corroborative evidence is required. The Tribunal also referred to CBDT Letter No.286/2/2003-IT(Inv) advising against making additions solely on confessional statements without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal found that the sale transactions were undertaken in the ordinary course of business and the opening balance of investment and purchases were not disputed. However, considering the revenue's submission regarding the profit element, the Tribunal directed that a net profit of 5% of the sale consideration (Rs. 17,05,60,000/-), amounting to Rs. 85,28,000/-, be subjected to tax. The addition to the extent of Rs. 16,20,32,000/- was deleted, and the balance of Rs. 85,28,000/- was sustained as profit element.
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 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 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, noting the ex-parte nature of both the AO's assessment and the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeal on limitation, and citing precedents on liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for delay condonation, decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring justice for the assessee.
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, 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 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 restored the issues to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh readjudication, directing that the assessee be granted an adequate opportunity to be heard and to provide the required details positively. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not attended assessment proceedings and had not provided details of the property from which rental income was derived, nor did Form 26AS show any TDS deduction. The assessee had claimed rental income of Rs. 4,86,000/- as business income in its return. The Tribunal observed that the Income Tax Act clearly defines five distinct heads of income. Multiple opportunities were given to the assessee to prove the source of rental income. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee's main object was to do business in agricultural produce, and therefore, rental income would fall under 'income from house property' unless shown to be derived from business activities. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 without proper notice and reasons was invalid. Since the revenue failed to provide any information or justification, the averments made by the assessee were accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the merits of the case, solely on the grounds of non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 264 days in filing the appeal. It noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits, solely on technical grounds of non-compliance. For justice and fair play, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to be decided on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2014-15, the reopening of assessment was invalid. The assessment was reopened after four years from the end of the assessment year, and the original assessment was framed under Section 143(3). The reasons recorded for reopening did not contain any whisper about the failure of the assessee to truly and materially disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. Therefore, the reopening violated the first proviso to Section 147. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ACIT Vs. CEAT Ltd., quashed the reopening and the consequent assessment order. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal found that the AO had merely reproduced the information received from the investigation wing without any application of mind or verification. The reasons recorded stated that the assessee received ₹1,05,00,000/- from M/s Shivahari Distributors Pvt. Ltd., whereas the CIT(A) noted that the assessee had only received ₹35,00,000/-. The Tribunal held that reopening based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind is invalid and cannot be sustained, citing several High Court decisions. Therefore, the reopening was quashed. The appeals were allowed on the legal issue of reopening.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued beyond the time prescribed by law for the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s orders to be non-speaking and lacking proper reasoning. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 64-day delay in filing the appeal. It restored the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present evidence, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid within 60 days. If the cost is not paid within the stipulated time, the CIT(A)'s order will stand confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the merits of the case, solely on grounds of non-compliance by the assessee. To ensure justice and fair play, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-examination.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s orders to be non-speaking and lacking proper reasoning. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of the CIT-DR and perused the records. It noted that the assessee or its authorized representative never attended the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee declared rental income of Rs. 4,86,000/- in its return but did not provide details of the property or source. Form 26AS also did not show any TDS deduction against this income. The assessee claimed this rental income under 'business income'. The Tribunal reiterated that the Income Tax Act provides distinct heads of income. Multiple opportunities were given to the assessee to prove the source of rental income. If the rental income is from letting out land and building, it falls under 'income from house property' unless shown to be derived from business activities. The Tribunal acknowledged that rental income from hiring plant and machinery would fall under 'income from other sources', but the assessee was conscious of it being rental income and avoided substantiating its claim. Given the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee's main object is agricultural produce trading, and respectfully following the Supreme Court's decision in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order. Both appeals of the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years without any mention of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts is in violation of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the reopening of assessment and the consequent order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of substantive justice, the assessee deserves a chance to present evidence and facts before the Assessing Officer (AO) for a correct determination of income. The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the orders passed by the lower authorities and the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present their case. However, the Tribunal also noted that the jurisdictional High Court had passed two relevant orders, namely BST Infratech Ltd. reported in 468 ITR 111 (Cal) and Balgopal Merchants reported in 468 ITR 136 (Cal), which should guide the AO. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, directing the AO to refer to and be guided by the aforementioned case laws in conducting enquiries. The assessee is expected to cooperate in these enquiries. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed orders ex parte without going into the merits of the case. The assessee was not given a proper opportunity to represent its case.
The Tribunal held that mentioning contradictory sections in an assessment order is a curable defect. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after rectifying the defects, ensuring proper assessment.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s orders to be non-speaking and lacking proper reasoning. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 without proper notice and reasons was invalid. Since the revenue failed to provide any information or justification, the averments made by the assessee were accepted.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to apply their minds and did not properly consider the evidence, including bank statements which showed no such transactions. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the deletion of the addition made under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot be invoked when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) confirmed the additions without fully examining documents and enhanced income without a show-cause notice, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cash balance of Rs. 11,30,655 at the beginning of the financial year 2016-17, which was duly disclosed. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer was without any basis.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A were not leviable. It found that no search was conducted directly on the assessee, the returns filed under Section 153C were accepted without additions, and no incriminating material was used. Citing High Court judgments, the tribunal concluded that once returned income is accepted and considered as a return filed under Section 139(1), no penalty for concealment or misreporting of income can be levied. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections, being in support of the CIT(A)'s order, were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 115BAB for the impugned assessment year. The reasoning was based on the fact that for AY 2022-23, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) had accepted the provision of Section 115BAB, as evidenced by the assessee applying the 15% tax rate, which was accepted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had applied for the benefit with all necessary documents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the intimation under Section 143(1) and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessing Officer was directed to apply the provisions of Section 115BAB and grant consequential relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity in the interest of justice, restoring the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days.
The Tribunal ruled that the minor delay in uploading Form 10B was a procedural lapse and technical in nature, not warranting the denial of the substantive Section 11 exemption. Relying on High Court precedents, it held that procedural provisions are directory, and substantial compliance suffices. The demand raised was set aside, and the CPC was directed to allow the exemption claim.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A were not leviable. It found that no search was conducted directly on the assessee, the returns filed under Section 153C were accepted without additions, and no incriminating material was used. Citing High Court judgments, the tribunal concluded that once returned income is accepted and considered as a return filed under Section 139(1), no penalty for concealment or misreporting of income can be levied. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections, being in support of the CIT(A)'s order, were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, which restricts disallowance to 30% of the expenditure if TDS is paid later, is retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance for both clearing and forwarding charges and commission expenses should be restricted to 30%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, it was held that the net profit calculation and depreciation on motor cars were correctly handled. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was partly erroneous, and the excess commission payment was also found to be an error.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A were not leviable. It found that no search was conducted directly on the assessee, the returns filed under Section 153C were accepted without additions, and no incriminating material was used. Citing High Court judgments, the tribunal concluded that once returned income is accepted and considered as a return filed under Section 139(1), no penalty for concealment or misreporting of income can be levied. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections, being in support of the CIT(A)'s order, were also dismissed as infructuous.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A were not leviable. It found that no search was conducted directly on the assessee, the returns filed under Section 153C were accepted without additions, and no incriminating material was used. Citing High Court judgments, the tribunal concluded that once returned income is accepted and considered as a return filed under Section 139(1), no penalty for concealment or misreporting of income can be levied. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections, being in support of the CIT(A)'s order, were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, it was held that the net profit calculation and depreciation on motor cars were correctly handled. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was partly erroneous, and the excess commission payment was also found to be an error.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, it was held that the net profit calculation and depreciation on motor cars were correctly handled. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was partly erroneous, and the excess commission payment was also found to be an error.