Loading ITAT cases…
259 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal found that dismissing the appeal without considering its merits violated natural justice principles. Citing that merits should prevail over technicalities, it remanded the case back to the learned CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after the assessee files a proper condonation petition for the delay.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the capital introduced by the partner via banking channels constituted a capital receipt and not unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, as the transaction did not involve an 'expenditure' by the assessee firm. The tribunal found no dispute regarding the source of money and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the CPC had subsequently passed a rectification order under Section 154, allowing the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11. As the assessee's grievance was resolved by this rectification, the appeal before the Tribunal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) allowing disallowance of Section 80P deduction for belated returns was introduced by Finance Act, 2021, effective from AY 2022-23. Therefore, for AY 2019-20, prior to this amendment, neither the CPC nor the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to deny the Section 80P deduction solely on the ground of late filing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided a detailed finding regarding the AO's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 147. However, it was unclear whether Ground No. 4, concerning the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148, had been addressed. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's contention that the impugned amounts might represent sundry debtors. Given the AO's finding that complete details were not presented, the Tribunal decided to grant an opportunity for verification. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the issue back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to share the details of approvals obtained prior to issuing the Section 148 notice, address any other objections regarding the assumption of jurisdiction, and provide the assessee an opportunity to present facts regarding the impugned addition. The assessee was advised to cooperate with the AO. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all necessary evidence, including ITRs, bank statements, and financial documents, proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share subscribers, who were existing shareholders or their relatives. The AO and CIT(A) failed to point out any defects in these evidences and relied solely on the non-compliance with summons under Section 131. The Tribunal ruled that an addition cannot be sustained merely on the ground of non-compliance with Section 131 summons when the assessee has provided robust evidence that was not disproved or further verified by the revenue authorities.
The ITAT remanded the sundry creditor mismatch issue concerning M/s. Bajrang Steel Trading Company back to the Assessing Officer for verification, instructing the assessee to provide relevant documents. Regarding the disallowance under Section 56(2)(viib) amounting to Rs.1,06,86,000/-, the Tribunal deleted the addition, finding that the AO erred in mechanically valuing shares without considering the market value of assets acquired and that there was no real gain for the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided comprehensive evidence of the lender's identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, which neither the AO nor CIT(A) had rebutted. Citing a similar favorable decision for the assessee in AY 2017-18 involving the same lender and other judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that an addition cannot be sustained merely due to non-compliance with Section 133(6) notices when other proofs are furnished. The addition was therefore directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's second revisionary order dated 27.12.2024 was invalid and time-barred. It noted the second revision was on a new ground (Section 40A(3)) not part of the first revision and that the original assessment, if to be revised on this new ground, would be barred by limitation under Section 263(2). Thus, the PCIT's order was quashed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) carefully considered the rival arguments and records. The ITAT found that the Ld. CIT(A) had reached a meticulous and judicious conclusion and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions.
The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from statutory deposits made as per mandatory directions of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies constitutes business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Citing its own prior decisions and the CIT(A)'s favorable rulings in earlier assessment years for the same assessee, the Tribunal applied the principle of consistency and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from statutory deposits made as per mandatory directions of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies constitutes business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Citing its own prior decisions and the CIT(A)'s favorable rulings in earlier assessment years for the same assessee, the Tribunal applied the principle of consistency and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid and a nullity. The reasons recorded by the AO were found to be vague, scanty, and lacking in independent application of mind. The AO had merely relied on information received from the ITO (Inv.) without proper verification or disclosure of his own satisfaction, failing to establish a vital link between the reasons and the evidence. The Tribunal cited the principles laid down in Hindusthan Lever Ltd. (supra) emphasizing that reasons must be clear, unambiguous, self-explanatory, and based on evidence, not supplemented by affidavits or oral submissions. Consequently, the reopening and the consequent order under Section 147 were quashed. The Tribunal also found that the additions made on merit were wrongly sustained by the CIT(A). The amounts received against sale of investments were duly supported by evidence, and the purchase of these investments was accepted. Remand proceedings corroborated the genuineness of transactions, and the cash in hand discrepancy was explained by overlooked cash withdrawals. Therefore, the additions were deemed incorrect.
The tribunal directed the AO to delete additions for all flats where the difference between the stamp duty value on the date of registration and the actual sale consideration was less than 10%. This relief is contingent upon the assessee fulfilling the conditions of Section 43CA(4), specifically that a part of the consideration was received by account payee cheque or other electronic mode on or before the date of agreement, allowing the stamp duty value on the agreement date to be considered.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing complete details of the share applicants. The Tribunal noted that passing the assessment order prior to the due date for compliance with Section 131 summons violated principles of natural justice, and an addition cannot be sustained merely on non-appearance.
The Tribunal ruled that the disputed amount of Rs. 5,51,81,527/-, representing liabilities written back, had already been credited and offered to tax in the profit and loss account. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by CPC under Section 41(1)(a) was an erroneous double addition and directed its deletion.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the orders of both the AO and CIT(A), remanding the entire appeal back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The ITAT found that the lower authorities failed to properly verify documentary evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the expenses, capital additions, and the Section 80IE deduction claim from a revised return.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the amalgamating company existed during assessment proceedings but the order was passed after amalgamation and notification to the AO. Due to the AO's failure to provide relevant records and the legal irregularity of assessing a non-existent entity, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication and passing of a fresh assessment order after verifying all details.
The Tribunal condoned the 47-day delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, and upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing, and the assessee is instructed to be diligent.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The date of uploading the DRP's directions on the ITBA portal is considered the date of receipt for calculating the limitation period.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had selectively considered certain transactions and failed to apply consistent principles, leading to an unsustainable approach. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that no penalty was imposable under Section 271(1)(c) because the show cause notice for penalty did not specify any allegation of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the assessed income and returned income were the same after the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), and no deduction was claimed in the year of investment.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case and produce all evidence before the CIT(A), directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the disallowance was due to the assessee's failure to furnish TRCs and adequately explain the chargeability of the brokerage income. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present all necessary documents and facts before the AO. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the case was remitted back to the AO for a fresh verification and order.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The date of uploading the DRP's directions on the ITBA portal is considered the date of receipt for calculating the limitation period.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders in haste and ex-parte, without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication after granting a proper hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the 819-day delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, with a directive for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the 160-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons in the assessee's affidavit to be plausible. The issues relating to the share application money were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh readjudication, with liberty granted to the assessee to produce further evidence and the AO empowered to issue notices under Section 131. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard and provided with any adverse evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to present its facts before the CIT(Exemption). Consequently, the appeal was restored to the Ld. CIT(Exemption) with a direction to consider the case afresh and pass an order in accordance with law.
The Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s view on the 'private' nature of the trust too narrow and remanded the Section 10(23C) application for fresh consideration. It also directed the CIT(E) to holistically re-examine the Section 12A application on merits, considering recent amendments to Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), despite the initial procedural lapse.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in both appeals. For ITA No. 30, the ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Consequently, for ITA No. 31, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted, with liberty for the Assessing Officer to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if quantum additions are confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed not adjudicated the limitation issue and noted the assessee's non-cooperation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, all three appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the limitation issue is addressed and the assessee receives adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed not adjudicated the limitation issue and noted the assessee's non-cooperation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, all three appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the limitation issue is addressed and the assessee receives adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the grounds challenging the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not adjudicable before it, as separate appeal channels are prescribed for such orders. Therefore, these grounds were dismissed. Regarding the grounds pertaining to the merit of the matter, the Tribunal noted that the assessee could not present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-response to notices. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide ample opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was advised to avail of these opportunities. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the merit of any order under Section 263 could not be adjudicated by them. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal noted the assessee's non-representation at lower levels. In the interest of justice and with no objection from the Sr. DR, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the set-aside proceedings.
The Tribunal found the assessee's case distinguishable from Totagars, asserting that the interest income from the Axis Bank account, maintained for the smooth running of its banking business for members, was business income attributable to the cooperative society's activity and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that credit for taxes deducted at source must be allowed to the assessee based on the quantum appearing in Form 26AS. The Ld. AO-CPC was directed to verify the Form 26AS and allow the credit as per law.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case and produce all evidence before the CIT(A), directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed not adjudicated the limitation issue and noted the assessee's non-cooperation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, all three appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the limitation issue is addressed and the assessee receives adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s view on the 'private' nature of the trust too narrow and remanded the Section 10(23C) application for fresh consideration. It also directed the CIT(E) to holistically re-examine the Section 12A application on merits, considering recent amendments to Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), despite the initial procedural lapse.
The Tribunal held that the period for which the assessee is required to file a return under Section 153C commences from the year in which the information or material is forwarded to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In this case, the information was forwarded on October 12, 2023, making AY 2024-25 the starting point. The Tribunal noted that the undisclosed income determined was below Rs. 50 lakh, thus the extended period of 10 years under Section 153C is not available to the revenue. Respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasjit Singh (supra), the Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C for AY 2015-16 is bad in law and therefore quashed. Consequently, the assessment order passed for AY 2015-16 was also quashed. The ratio decidendi is that the commencement of the Section 153C period is tied to the date of receipt of materials by the jurisdictional AO, and the ten-year period is contingent on the undisclosed income exceeding Rs. 50 lakh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in both appeals. For ITA No. 30, the ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Consequently, for ITA No. 31, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted, with liberty for the Assessing Officer to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if quantum additions are confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal observed that both the ex-parte assessment by the AO and the CIT(A)'s dismissal were made without proper consideration of facts and providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to furnish documentary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It noted that most grounds of appeal raised by the revenue were covered by previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 to 2011-12, which the revenue had not appealed. Regarding sundry receipts, the Tribunal confirmed they were related to the tea business and eligible for the benefit of Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, citing earlier judgments.
The Tribunal held that the income from license fees should be treated as income from house property, following past precedents and the decision of the Apex Court. For the subsequent year, the Tribunal found the Section 143(2) notice invalid due to non-compliance with CBDT instructions, quashing the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid as it failed to specify the type of scrutiny (limited, complete, or compulsory manual) as mandated by CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessment order framed based on this invalid notice was declared void ab initio and quashed, with the additional legal ground allowed.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case and provide all required details. The assessee was directed to cooperate positively in the readjudication proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the income from license fees should be treated as income from house property, following past precedents and the decision of the Apex Court. For the subsequent year, the Tribunal found the Section 143(2) notice invalid due to non-compliance with CBDT instructions, quashing the assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the 180-day delay in filing both appeals. In the interest of justice, the issues in both appeals were restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity. However, due to the assessee's non-cooperation, a cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the quantum appeal (ITA No.2664/Kol/2024), payable to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)'s order would be confirmed.