Loading ITAT cases…
187 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that since the assessee was an old Trust and had secured 12AB approval, its 80G application should have been under Section 80G(5)(i) for existing trusts. Following the `Nitdaa Foundation` case, the Tribunal considered filing under the wrong clause a curable defect, set aside the CIT(E)'s order, and remanded the matter for reconsideration as if filed under Section 80G(5)(i) for approval.
The Tribunal held the reassessment initiated beyond four years invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to record the non-disclosure of true and correct facts by the assessee, which is a condition precedent under the first proviso to Section 147. Furthermore, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had repaid the loans, paid interest, and deducted TDS u/s 194A, indicating the transactions were genuine and not accommodation entries. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) was not sustained.
The Tribunal set aside the ld. CIT(A)'s ex parte order, concluding that the interest of justice required restoring the appeal to the ld. CIT(A)'s file. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the loan taken by the assessee was repaid before the assessment proceedings. The revenue failed to demonstrate that the case involved tax evasion activities. Consequently, on account of the tax effect being below Rs.60 lakh, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC order was passed ex parte as the assessee failed to appear. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the case on merits after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide material evidence or details of the alleged transactions with KMPL. Given the assessee's affidavit denying such purchases and the lack of substantiation by the AO, the addition made under Section 69C was deemed unsustainable and deleted. Other grounds of appeal concerning different additions were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding sufficient cause. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity for proper representation, contingent upon the assessee paying a cost of ₹50,000/- to Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost would result in the CIT(A)'s order being confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing documentary evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and financial capacity of the lenders. The Assessing Officer failed to discharge the subsequent burden to investigate further.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were vague, scanty, and ambiguous, not forming a valid basis for belief that income had escaped assessment. The AO acted on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had deducted the TDS and paid it to the Central Government, although a small part of the payment amounting to Rs. 27,752/- was delayed. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had partially complied but failed to provide complete information, leading to rejection. The CIT-DR did not object to the assessee's prayer for remand. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation, with the condition that failure to pay within 60 days would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had partially complied but failed to provide complete information, leading to rejection. The CIT-DR did not object to the assessee's prayer for remand. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation, with the condition that failure to pay within 60 days would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, which allows disallowance of Chapter VI-A deductions for late filing, was effective from April 1, 2021. Therefore, it was not applicable to the assessment year 2019-20. Consequently, the denial of Section 80P deduction was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that Section 43B is not applicable to service tax payments if they are not routed through the profit and loss account and are considered on an actual payment basis. Since the CIT(A) did not ascertain how the service tax was routed and whether it was actually received, the order was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the first ground of appeal concerning excess commission paid was infructuous as the CIT(A) had deleted the addition. Regarding the undisclosed commission income, the Tribunal found a lack of reconciliation for a discount claimed by the assessee and thus remanded the issue to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and submit evidence.
The Tribunal observed that the current appeal was indeed a duplicate, as the matter had already been adjudicated and an order passed in a previous appeal for the same assessment year. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the instant appeal as infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had uploaded a registration certificate under Section 12A for subsequent assessment years, implying registration for the impugned year. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication after granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, ruling that the reassessment was based on a mere 'change of opinion' and was unjustified as all material facts were disclosed during the original assessment. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that the reassessment initiated after four years on an issue previously examined and allowed under Section 143(3) was invalid due to 'change of opinion', citing the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating on the merits of the depreciation claim itself.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 195 days, finding the reasons plausible and valid. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, finding that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives adequate opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT held that since the assessee had disclosed all relevant material regarding the LTCG transaction in the return of income, there was no conscious or deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Relying on judicial precedents, the tribunal concluded that the penalty could not be levied and deleted the impugned penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons plausible and valid. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives adequate opportunity of being heard. However, for non-cooperation during appellate proceedings, the assessee was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to Legal Aid Services.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the lack of sufficient opportunity before the CIT(A), the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee, who must cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in restoring the issue to the AO as the assessee was not given adequate time by the AO to provide evidence. The CIT(A) has the power to set aside issues to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not paid the admitted tax liability. However, persuaded by the AR's submission that the department could recover the tax by disposing of seized assets, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) to allow the AO to recover the admitted tax liability from the seized assets, after which the appeal would be admitted and adjudicated on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not condoning the 478-day delay, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and decide the appeal on merits as per Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to avail opportunities to produce evidence. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment, granting an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and perusing the available records, allowed the appeal of the assessee to be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that they were pursuing an alternative remedy by filing an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Pr. CIT (Asansol) for condonation of delay and permission to claim deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to file a fresh appeal before the competent authority if their petition under Section 119(2)(b) was not accepted. The specific issue regarding the merits of the disallowance under Section 80P was not decided, as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh appeal.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not paid the admitted tax liability. However, persuaded by the AR's submission that the department could recover the tax by disposing of seized assets, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) to allow the AO to recover the admitted tax liability from the seized assets, after which the appeal would be admitted and adjudicated on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by relying on a Bombay High Court judgment. Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Swati Bajaj, the Tribunal found the initial purchase shrouded in off-market transactions and upheld the AO's addition.
The Tribunal found it more practical to restore the issues, including the genuineness and source of share capital under Section 263, to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce relevant persons and pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as costs to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, with the CIT(A)'s order standing confirmed in case of default.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not paid the admitted tax liability. However, persuaded by the AR's submission that the department could recover the tax by disposing of seized assets, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) to allow the AO to recover the admitted tax liability from the seized assets, after which the appeal would be admitted and adjudicated on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly applied Section 68 of the Act to cash withdrawals from the assessee's own bank account, which were part of normal business transactions and reflected in the books of accounts. The addition was based on surmises and conjectures.