Loading ITAT cases…
259 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order lacked proper reasoning and did not discuss or distinguish case laws. The Tribunal noted that the AO had considered all investments, not just those yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without going into the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the matter on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
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 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 noted the assessee's inability to produce documents and that the CIT(E) had issued notices which remained uncomplied with. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, instructing that the assessee be granted adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) had wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(X) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the agreement for the purchase of the property was made on 28.12.2012, and payments were made subsequently, with the entire consideration paid by 25.11.2015. Since Section 56(2)(X) was introduced with effect from 01.04.2017 (applicable from AY 2017-18), it could not be applied to transactions entered into prior to its enactment. The Tribunal relied on its co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2020-21, which dealt with a similar issue. The ratio decidendi is that provisions of Section 56(2)(X) cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions where the agreement to sell was executed and substantial payments were made before the introduction of the said section. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed by the AO is barred by limitation and is, therefore, quashed. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 153(2) of the Act, as it stood immediately before its substitution by the Finance Act, 2016, specified a time limit for passing reassessment orders. The proviso to this section, as amended, provided a two-year period for notices served during the financial year 1999-2000. However, for notices served in other periods, the time limit was one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice was served. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 was served on June 18, 1997, which falls outside the specific period mentioned in the proviso. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in CIT v Smt. Anchi Devi and ITO v Atul Agarwal, which held that the extended time limit was only applicable to notices served within the specified period. The Tribunal further observed that the amended law of limitation expressly provides how limitation in pending cases is to be determined. Consequently, the reassessment order dated September 28, 2021, was found to be beyond the permissible time limit. The Tribunal did not adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee as the appeal was allowed on the legal issue of limitation. The revenue's cross-appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons bonafide. It admitted the additional ground, holding that the notice u/s 143(2) was invalid as it failed to specify the type of scrutiny (limited, complete, or compulsory manual) as required by CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as void ab initio.
The Tribunal condoned the 103-day delay in filing the present appeal against the penalty order. Recognizing that the underlying quantum proceedings had already been remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the Tribunal set aside the impugned penalty order and also remanded it to the CIT(A) to be considered along with the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that notices were issued but the assessee made no compliance. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity. However, a cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
Given that the assessee had settled the underlying dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and the Senior DR raised no objection, the Tribunal deemed the revenue's appeal infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a genuine belief that his actual turnover for the purpose of Section 44AB was only his commission income. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that a reasonable cause was adequately made out under Section 273B of the Act, leading to the deletion of the penalty levied under Section 271B.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as per Section 153 of the Act. The assessment orders passed were quashed due to the expiry of the prescribed time limits for completion.
The Tribunal observed that the DRP's order, which formed the basis of the assessment, failed to provide specific reasons for adjudicating the assessee's explanations. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issues back to the DRP for passing a speaking order after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as per Section 153 of the Act. The assessment orders passed were quashed due to the expiry of the prescribed time limits for completion.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in concluding that the assessee failed to provide details, as evidence of e-filing a reply was presented. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as per Section 153 of the Act. The assessment orders passed were quashed due to the expiry of the prescribed time limits for completion.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to produce documents and that the CIT(E) had issued notices which remained uncomplied with. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, instructing that the assessee be granted adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the reassessment notice, though dated 31.03.2021, was signed and served on 02.04.2021. This was deemed invalid and bad in law as it did not comply with the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in *Union of India Vs. Ashish Agrawal* for notices issued between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021, nor with relevant CBDT instructions and clarifications. Consequently, the reopening of assessment and the framed assessment were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the Section 148 notice issued on 29.07.2022 was beyond the prescribed time limit under the extant provisions, as the benefit of TOLA for extending limitation was not applicable. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal held the assessment order unsustainable and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that although the assessee did not appear before the AO, all necessary documents were filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the AO regarding the cash deposits. The AO, in his remand report dated 08.01.2024, confirmed that the cash deposits were out of cash sales of liquor. The CIT(A) had passed a detailed and speaking order based on this remand report, concluding that the cash deposit of Rs. 91,86,850/- was out of liquor sales amounting to Rs. 1,25,26,785/-. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which was based on the AO's confirmation in the remand report. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that the CPC did not have the power to disallow the deduction under section 80P while processing the return under section 143(1) for the assessment year 2018-19, as this power was granted to the AO effective from 01.04.2021.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner for reopening the assessment was invalid due to a lack of proper application of mind and adherence to the statutory requirements. Consequently, the reopening proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s dismissal due to non-prosecution and the assessee's undertaking to cooperate. In the interest of justice, it decided to restore all appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise additional grounds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and not on merits, and the assessee sought an opportunity to present evidence, the matter should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. AO CPC erred in not considering the application of income despite the facts being available in the return, and the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Ld. AO to allow the application of funds, confirming that the assessee's income should be assessed as nil.
The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s dismissal due to non-prosecution and the assessee's undertaking to cooperate. In the interest of justice, it decided to restore all appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise additional grounds.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Pr. CIT, stating 'Yes, I am satisfied. May be reopened,' was not a definitive approval. The use of 'may be reopened' indicated discretion rather than a mandatory satisfaction required for initiating reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons genuine and bonafide. It noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and lacked a discussion on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s dismissal due to non-prosecution and the assessee's undertaking to cooperate. In the interest of justice, it decided to restore all appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise additional grounds.
The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s dismissal was due to a lack of documents. Considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee (tax withholding certificate from IBM Schweiz AG and Axis Travel Currency Card statements) and cited judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after reviewing all submitted documents and arguments.
The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders, and genuineness of transactions, including PAN, IT returns, bank statements, interest payment, and loan repayments. The ITAT noted that merely because parties could not be traced, it could not be a ground for making the addition when substantial evidence was provided.
The Tribunal noted that there were two appeals filed against the same assessment order, leading to confusion and contradictory orders. The ITAT had previously set aside the assessment order in ITA No. 981/Kol/2023. The present appeal was filed against a subsequent CIT(A) order that dismissed the appeal on grounds similar to those set aside by the ITAT.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence regarding the share applicants. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to consumers was the most appropriate ALP. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which was based on various High Court and ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s dismissal due to non-prosecution and the assessee's undertaking to cooperate. In the interest of justice, it decided to restore all appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise additional grounds.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner for reopening the assessment was invalid due to a lack of proper application of mind and adherence to the statutory requirements. Consequently, the reopening proceedings were quashed.
The ITAT observed that the assessee was non-compliant both before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, but noted that the assessee's challenges to the addition needed scrutiny. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, Kolkata, was without jurisdiction. This was because the case had been transferred u/s 127 of the Act to Ahmedabad, where an assessment had already been finalized prior to the Kolkata AO's assessment. Consequently, the assessment order issued by the Kolkata AO was deemed invalid and quashed.
The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders, and genuineness of transactions, including PAN, IT returns, bank statements, interest payment, and loan repayments. The ITAT noted that merely because parties could not be traced, it could not be a ground for making the addition when substantial evidence was provided.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal CIT for reopening the assessment was invalid because the phrase "May be reopened" indicated discretion rather than satisfaction. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were quashed.
The Tribunal found that both the AO's ex-parte order and the CIT(A)'s order were non-speaking and passed without adequate opportunity of being heard, violating natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee due opportunity.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued multiple notices for hearing which the assessee failed to comply with. However, to uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity, restoring the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to appear diligently.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner for reopening the assessment was invalid due to a lack of proper application of mind and adherence to the statutory requirements. Consequently, the reopening proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's affidavit undertaking that its directors would appear before the AO if given an opportunity. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the AO to pass a fresh order, providing the assessee an opportunity to produce the directors.
The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s dismissal due to non-prosecution and the assessee's undertaking to cooperate. In the interest of justice, it decided to restore all appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise additional grounds.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner for reopening the assessment was invalid due to a lack of proper application of mind and adherence to the statutory requirements. Consequently, the reopening proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Department is contrary to its own policy decision as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the revenue to seek recall of the order if the tax effect is later found to be more than Rs. 60 lakhs or if the appeal is otherwise maintainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing, contrary to Section 250(6). Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner for reopening the assessment was invalid due to a lack of proper application of mind and adherence to the statutory requirements. Consequently, the reopening proceedings were quashed.