Loading ITAT cases…
369 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits, as Section 250(6) mandates a speaking order with reasons. The CIT(A) also failed to follow the principles laid down in various judicial pronouncements regarding reasoned orders and the inability to dismiss appeals solely for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matters back to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and required information.
The Tribunal held that an extensive review of judicial literature reveals that courts have invariably taken the view that delay in filing Form 10B is condonable and not fatal to any claim u/s 11 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that in this case, Form 10B was not uploaded within the due date, but this was claimed to be unintentional. It was also noted that the form was available before the Ld. Assessing Officer at the time of processing the return of income and was uploaded by the Chartered Accountant in time for that purpose. The filing of Form 10B has been held to be a procedural requirement and directive in nature, not mandatory. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions Kolkata vs M/s Indian Sugar Mills Association, where the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held that the filing of the auditor's report along with the return of income is a procedural provision and therefore, directory in nature. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the intimation of the Ld. AO, remitting the matter back to the Ld. AO for considering the claim of the assessee afresh. All grounds taken by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits after granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with the PCIT's notices. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and remanded the matter back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order, passed mechanically without proper application of mind. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits and the validity of reopening proceedings.
The ITAT ruled that only "real" income is assessable, deleting the notional interest addition. It further held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not applicable when no exempt income has been earned, thereby deleting the second addition. The jurisdictional ground was not adjudicated due to the success on substantive issues.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued on 27.07.2022, was beyond the time prescribed by the Act, making it barred by limitation. Citing a precedent, it concluded that the benefit of the TOLA extension did not apply, as the limitation under the old regime had expired. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons provided by the assessee. Considering the assessee had accepted 5% commission in earlier statements and filed returns with similar income in subsequent years, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income at 5% of the total turnover (Rs. 1,78,57,075/-) instead of 8%.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a deceased person, after the AO was notified of the death, is void. Therefore, the assessment order deserved to be quashed.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act. The lender company did not respond. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity to the assessee to produce documents.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's undertaking to cooperate, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal ruled that a subsequent Supreme Court judgment, when clear and directly on point, constitutes a "mistake apparent from the record" for rectification under Section 154, provided it is within the statutory time limits. The CIT(A)'s rectification based on the Checkmate Services judgment was upheld as valid.
The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT(A) to afford the assessee an opportunity to present its case, considering the assessee's readiness to cooperate in the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present the required clarifications and documents. Therefore, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. The assessee is advised to comply with notices from the Ld. CIT(E).
The Tribunal condoned the 397-day delay in filing the appeal after the assessee provided sufficient reasons and the Senior DR did not object. The Tribunal noted the assessee's categorical admission that they did not opt for the VSVS Scheme for the impugned assessment year (framed under Section 143/147) but for an assessment under Section 143(3). Consequently, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer's file for re-adjudication on merits, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO during the re-adjudication proceedings.
The Tribunal quashed the reopening notice under Section 148 and the consequential assessment order, following the Delhi High Court's ruling in Well Trans Logistics India (P) Ltd. It found that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct further inquiries or establish a 'live link' between the received information and the belief that income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be genuine. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits of the case due to the assessee's failure to provide explanations. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders for both assessment years to be non-speaking and lacking consideration of the assessee's submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders and restored all issues in both appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and raise additional grounds.
The ITAT, after reviewing the evidence, found the assessee's explanation regarding the source of funds credible and duly substantiated. It observed that the lower authorities failed to adequately investigate the facts despite clear evidence. Consequently, the tribunal directed the deletion of the Rs. 24,00,000/- addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the Section 148 notice and quash the reassessment proceedings. The notice was issued in the name of a non-existent company after the Revenue was aware of its amalgamation.
The Tribunal found the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders for both assessment years to be non-speaking and lacking consideration of the assessee's submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders and restored all issues in both appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and raise additional grounds.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect on the disputed additions was indeed less than Rs. 60 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, which applies retrospectively. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The department was granted liberty to approach the ITAT if the case is later found to be covered under specific exceptions.
The ITAT condoned the 194-day delay, finding the reasons to be genuine and bonafide. It set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This decision ensures that the assessee is provided a proper opportunity to be heard and to present all documentary evidence.
The tribunal ruled that a subsequent Supreme Court judgment, when clear and directly on point, constitutes a "mistake apparent from the record" for rectification under Section 154, provided it is within the statutory time limits. The CIT(A)'s rectification based on the Checkmate Services judgment was upheld as valid.
The tribunal ruled that a subsequent Supreme Court judgment, when clear and directly on point, constitutes a "mistake apparent from the record" for rectification under Section 154, provided it is within the statutory time limits. The CIT(A)'s rectification based on the Checkmate Services judgment was upheld as valid.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's application for condonation of delay. The reasoning was based on the observation that the assessee, despite claiming discomfort with the online mechanism due to being a super senior citizen, is involved in commodity transactions which are described as 'bogus' and 'practically online transactions'. The Tribunal found this to be a contradiction, indicating that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were false. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the condonation application was not maintainable. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee was not admitted for hearing due to the delay. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, as it was dismissed on a procedural technicality. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Upon reviewing the assessee's balance sheets and continuous cash withdrawal patterns from his bank account, the Tribunal found that the assessee had adequate source to explain the Rs. 14,01,000/- cash deposit during demonetization. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the signed copy provided by the department was not genuinely signed by the issuing officer. Citing CBDT Instruction No.01/2018 (dated 12.02.2018, para 4.2), which mandates digital signatures for all e-Proceeding communications, the Tribunal concluded that the unsigned notice under Section 148 was invalid, thereby annulling the consequential assessment.
The Tribunal held that the first additional ground regarding the mechanical nature of the reopening was rejected. The second ground challenging the PCIT's approval was also rejected for lack of proper documentation and affidavit. The third ground regarding the absence of DIN was restored for further action pending Supreme Court decision. The fourth ground challenging jurisdiction was dismissed. The merits of the case were restored to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to present facts. However, it imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the assessee for wasting the department's time due to non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present documents and evidence.
The Tribunal decided that the addition made on account of commodity profit, amounts received from a benefit trust, and gifts received from HUF are bad in law and directed to be deleted. Specifically, regarding gifts received from non-relatives that were disclosed in the return of income and offered to tax under income from other sources, the Tribunal held that there was no concealment or suppression of income. The details were placed before the AO and CIT(A), and income already offered to tax cannot be subjected to taxation under deeming provisions. Relying on CIT v. Kailash Jewellery House, the Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 68 in respect of disclosed gifts. The Tribunal also noted that the trust deed was made on 11.12.2010, creating Aakash Sureka Educational Trust, and the trust had paid taxes on its income. Following a co-ordinate bench decision in ACIT vs. Mrs. Sandhya A Pratap, the Tribunal held that amounts received in pursuance of dissolution of a trust cannot be termed as received without consideration. Therefore, additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) in these matters were deleted. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the trade advance, which was received through banking channels for a business transaction and subsequently refunded due to cancellation of the order, could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence and that Section 68 is not applicable to subsequently refunded trade advances.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. The Tribunal also considered the submissions regarding disallowances of late payment of PF & ESI, service tax expenses, and bonus payments.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present all required details. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was a procedural delay and not a deliberate omission. Relying on various High Court judgments, the Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption as due.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from bank deposits, when such funds are part of the business of providing credit facilities to members, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Totagars case was distinguished based on its specific facts.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal. It held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause and documentary evidence to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A for unabated assessment years are unsustainable without incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that profits from commodity trading and amounts received on the dissolution of a trust, which were already disclosed and taxed, cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. Similarly, disclosed gifts, even if from a trust, should not be subjected to further taxation under Section 68 if already offered to tax.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete a significant portion of the addition made under Section 69C. The Tribunal found that the purchases were supported by bills, payments were made through banking channels, and no incriminating documents were found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of estimating income based on TDS documents was not in accordance with accounting principles and the law. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was found to be correct. The ground regarding TDS credit was also allowed.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the trade advance, which was received through banking channels for a business transaction and subsequently refunded due to cancellation of the order, could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence and that Section 68 is not applicable to subsequently refunded trade advances.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the trade advance, which was received through banking channels for a business transaction and subsequently refunded due to cancellation of the order, could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence and that Section 68 is not applicable to subsequently refunded trade advances.
The Tribunal held that an irregularity occurred due to the assessee's failure to respond to the notice. This irregularity was curable. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of estimating income based on TDS documents was not in accordance with accounting principles and the law. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was found to be correct. The ground regarding TDS credit was also allowed.