Loading ITAT cases…
226 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2,10,000/- under 'income from house property' and the disallowance of carry forward loss of Rs. 12,22,124/- were not warranted. The Assessing Officer took contradictory stands regarding property ownership and rental income estimation.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reference to the VO under Section 142A of the Income Tax Act was valid for the assessment year in question, as the relevant provisions had been amended. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a charitable society and suffered due to lack of vigilance. Considering the interests of substantive justice, the ITAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. AO/Addl. JCIT(A) for fresh consideration, advising the assessee to be vigilant regarding notices.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities erred in not considering the correct due date for filing the return for an LLP, which is September 30th as per the LLP Act. Since the assessee filed its return before this due date, it is entitled to carry forward the business loss.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was indeed below the threshold limit specified in the CBDT circular and the Revenue's counsel could not rebut this fact or provide any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss the merits of the case, relying solely on the assessee's non-compliance with notices. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, the issues relating to alleged accommodation entries should be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) must grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, allow production of directors and evidence, and may draw adverse inferences if the assessee fails to cooperate.
The ITAT admitted the additional ground of appeal, finding that the omission to raise it earlier was a bona fide oversight. The tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication of the additional ground relating to the penalty order, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, as certain facts required verification.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and the records. It noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had abruptly dismissed the assessee's appeal on grounds of limitation. While acknowledging that the assessee should have filed a petition for condoning the delay along with the form of appeal, the Tribunal, in the interests of substantive justice, decided to set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 103 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The matter was remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh assessment. The Tribunal advised the assessee to represent the facts in a timely manner before the Ld. AO. The issue of the initial 33-day delay before the Ld. CIT(A) was implicitly addressed by remanding the matter for fresh assessment, implying that the merits would be considered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the transaction and the existence of the asset. The inability to trace the supplier after several years should not negate the assessee's claim, especially when payment was made through account payee cheques and the asset was installed and used.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 407 days in filing the appeal, finding a plausible reason. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the delay was solely due to non-service of the assessment order and condoned the delay of 121 days in the interest of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the Amended Deed dated 07.05.2014, which established the Trust's creation for both religious and charitable purposes. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for benefits under Section 115BBC.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal without properly considering the merits or providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that an additional ground was raised by the assessee, and both parties agreed to remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate this additional ground. The Tribunal found it to be a fit case for remittal to examine the basic facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's contention of being under the control of the Official Liquidator. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo reassessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It held that closing stock should be evaluated at the lower of cost or market value. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine the profit/loss from equity shares and its incorporation into the closing stock valuation, while also checking for artificial management of figures.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 37 days, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12A of the Act, following the rule of consistency and relying on its own previous judgment for subsequent assessment years. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on the incorrect premise that the assessee was not eligible for exemption.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection, and consequently dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of substantive justice, despite the assessee's lack of diligence, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present their facts.
The ITAT, after considering the submissions, found the reasons provided for the 44-day delay to be bona fide and genuine. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merit, directing that the assessee be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal also decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the issue, providing an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal noted that there was a lack of proper compliance before the AO and CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for reassessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case, with a caution for future cooperation.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has not earned any exempt income in a particular year, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. M/s. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.
The Tribunal, noting that the Departmental Representative had no objection, granted the permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed additional evidence and requested to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the documents. The Departmental Representative did not object to this.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed additional evidence and requested to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the documents. The Departmental Representative did not object to this.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal on delay without proper adjudication was unjustified, especially since a remand report was previously called for. However, considering the assessment was made ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that for exemption under Section 10(10D) for ULIP policies issued before April 1, 2012, the amount must be received as part of a matured policy or upon a specified contingency. Premature termination would not qualify for exemption, and gains would be taxed as capital gains. However, the Tribunal found a gap in fact-finding by the AO regarding the applicability of Section 10(10D).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a plausible reason for the delay. However, the Tribunal dismissed all the Revenue's appeals on the ground of tax effect, as the Senior DR could not present an exceptional clause for filing and because the penalty under Section 270 had already been dropped in the quantum assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a plausible reason for the delay. However, the Tribunal dismissed all the Revenue's appeals on the ground of tax effect, as the Senior DR could not present an exceptional clause for filing and because the penalty under Section 270 had already been dropped in the quantum assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a plausible reason for the delay. However, the Tribunal dismissed all the Revenue's appeals on the ground of tax effect, as the Senior DR could not present an exceptional clause for filing and because the penalty under Section 270 had already been dropped in the quantum assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. However, since the assessee could not provide any explanation for the suppressed turnover, admitted as erroneous, and failed to show justification for the delay despite multiple hearings, the appeal was dismissed on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, and an appeal must be adjudicated on its merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity for hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a retracted statement recorded under Section 133A, as it has weak evidentiary value without corroboration. The Tribunal also noted that the loans were repaid and the lenders had sufficient funds.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under section 148 did not mention the mandatory sanction obtained under section 151, indicating a lack of application of mind. The reasons recorded were also found to be vague and based on suspicion rather than a belief of escaped income.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as it violated the proviso to Section 147, specifically because no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts was established after four years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of retracted statements recorded under Section 133A, as they have weak evidentiary value without corroboration. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 of the Act is unjustified and illegal and accordingly deleted the same. The reasoning was based on the fact that the loan of Rs. 2,45,00,000/- from M/s Victor Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. was repaid in subsequent years, as evidenced by a chart provided by the assessee and bank statements. The loan was received via account payee cheques, interest was paid with TDS deducted, the lenders were regular income tax assessees with PANs on record, and the lenders had sufficient balance in their accounts. The Tribunal found force in the assessee's arguments, particularly referencing the Supreme Court's decision in ITO Vs Kayathwal Estate(P) Ltd. This decision held that if an assessee has disclosed fully and truly material facts with respect to a loan transaction, including repayment with interest and TDS, and the AO accepted the transaction during scrutiny assessment, then reopening after four years is unjustified if the conditions precedent for exercising power under Section 147 are not satisfied. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was made without jurisdiction and was invalid. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS) 139/Kol/2024 succeeded on legal grounds as well as on merits. The same findings were applied mutatis mutandis to IT(SS)A No.140/Kol/2024. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,79,679/- as commission income. The Tribunal noted that in subsequent assessment years, the commission was accepted at 10% of TDS. Therefore, the same rate should apply for the assessment year 2011-12.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as it violated the proviso to Section 147, specifically because no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts was established after four years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as it violated the proviso to Section 147, specifically because no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts was established after four years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were quashed.