Loading ITAT cases…
369 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce sufficient evidence regarding the purchase price and consideration of the shares of M/s Alom Extrusion Ltd., a sister concern. Despite opportunities, the assessee could not substantiate the claim of loss.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(E), allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit all necessary documents for registration, as the assessee expressed readiness to do so.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for hearing. Considering that the assessee could not provide all necessary details to the AO, the tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity.
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. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days.
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 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 held that the addition was wrongly made as the income was already offered to tax by the assessee. It further noted that the AO/CPC made the addition while processing the return, leading to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the Kolkata High Court's decision in PCIT Vs JP Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., which stated that retrospective withdrawal of Section 35(1)(ii) approval for an organization does not affect the deduction rights for genuine donations. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the revenue's Sr. DR failed to dislodge the factual findings of the CIT(A). Given that the assessee had not claimed any benefit under Section 10(38) and had properly offered the profit from share sales as business income, the ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had neither explained the delay in filing the appeal nor appeared to pursue it. It concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and therefore dismissed it.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons plausible and unopposed by the DR. It restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard, subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000 and cooperation.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. AR requested one more opportunity to present the assessee's case before the Ld. CIT(A) due to the latter's ex parte order and the assessee's non-cooperation in appellate proceedings. While the Ld. Sr. DR opposed granting a second round, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This restoration is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days, with proof of payment to be produced at the first hearing. Failure to comply with this condition will result in the confirmation of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) in the readjudication proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of cooperation in the appellate proceedings. However, in the interest of justice, it restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh readjudication, contingent on the assessee paying Rs. 50,000/- as costs for each year to Legal Aid Services and cooperating with the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not make proper submissions at the assessment and appellate stages. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders and remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that while the reopening was valid, the merits of the addition required further verification. The assessee had not produced crucial evidence before the lower authorities regarding the nature of transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the revenue's grounds of appeal did not challenge the deletion of additions on merits but raised issues that did not originate from the CIT(A)'s order. Furthermore, the tax effect in this case, Rs. 9,11,026/-, was below the CBDT's prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the 602-day delay, finding the reasons plausible. It restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to grant adequate hearing opportunities and the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of cooperation in the appellate proceedings. However, in the interest of justice, it restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh readjudication, contingent on the assessee paying Rs. 50,000/- as costs for each year to Legal Aid Services and cooperating with the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's reasonable cause. It restored the issues to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is provided an adequate opportunity of being heard. This restoration is conditional upon the assessee paying costs of Rs.50,000/- to Legal Aid Services.