Loading ITAT cases…
239 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order was valid as the Assessing Officer failed to disallow expenses that were not allowable under the Act. The Tribunal found that the conditions for revision under Section 263 were met.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether additions under Section 14A should be considered for book profit computation under Section 115JB is a debatable issue. Furthermore, on merits, various High Court and Tribunal decisions prohibit such additions for book profit calculation.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year was pending before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the penalty issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication along with the quantum matter.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the PCIT for issuing the notice under Section 148 was mechanical, as it merely stated 'as approved' with a 'yes' stamp, without demonstrating application of mind or recording satisfaction. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the PCIT for issuing the notice under Section 148 was mechanical, as it merely stated 'as approved' with a 'yes' stamp, without demonstrating application of mind or recording satisfaction. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the PCIT for issuing the notice under Section 148 was mechanical, as it merely stated 'as approved' with a 'yes' stamp, without demonstrating application of mind or recording satisfaction. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the PCIT for issuing the notice under Section 148 was mechanical, as it merely stated 'as approved' with a 'yes' stamp, without demonstrating application of mind or recording satisfaction. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the PCIT for issuing the notice under Section 148 was mechanical, as it merely stated 'as approved' with a 'yes' stamp, without demonstrating application of mind or recording satisfaction. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte without addressing the merits, which was a violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merit, ensuring reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and advising against unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's partner's medical condition. It noted that the assessee was not properly represented before the lower authorities and decided to set aside both orders, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the intimation under section 143(1) was issued on 29.09.2020, before the amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, which allowed disallowance for belated returns, came into effect on 01.04.2021. Therefore, the CPC lacked the jurisdiction to make such a disallowance at that time. The disallowance was deemed invalid and bad in law.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly represented before the CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed without a decision on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny, and CBDT instructions mandate that the AO can only examine flagged issues unless proper approval for conversion to complete scrutiny is obtained. In this case, the AO made an addition under section 69C, and the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order affirming the AO's findings without verifying the assessee's claim that the addition exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny. The Tribunal noted that an appellate authority is duty-bound to examine issues independently. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The addition of ₹28,50,000 under section 69C was restored to the AO with directions to pass a speaking order after considering all submissions and evidence furnished by the assessee, who was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person without proper legal heir representation are void ab initio. The issuance of a show-cause notice and passing of an assessment order in the name of a dead person, especially when the department was aware of the death, renders the entire proceedings null and void.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request and in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the Id. AO by restoring the issues for fresh adjudication, provided the assessee cooperates.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It directed the CIT (Exemption) to provide the assessee another opportunity to file submissions, justify the genuineness of activities, correct the section code if needed, and hear the assessee before deciding the application afresh, emphasizing the importance of examining the charitable activities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied credit for TDS deducted from their salary, even if the deductor failed to deposit it with the government, as per Section 205 of the Income Tax Act and CBDT instructions.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request and in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the Id. AO by restoring the issues for fresh adjudication, provided the assessee cooperates.
The Tribunal condoned the 28-day delay, relying on a Supreme Court judgment concerning Covid-19 related limitation period exclusions. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify if the donation was a general or corpus donation, clarifying that no addition should be made if it was a corpus donation.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request and in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the Id. AO by restoring the issues for fresh adjudication, provided the assessee cooperates.
The Tribunal, relying on its Co-ordinate Bench's previous decision in the assessee's own case, ruled that composing and DTP services for publishing books are not "technical services" under Section 194J. Therefore, the assessee correctly deducted TDS at 2% under Section 194C. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 40(a)(ia) was accordingly deleted.
The Tribunal held that the purchases from M/s. Hiraani Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. were clearly bogus, as evidenced by the lack of details in the invoices, the unverified existence of the supplier, and the statement of Niraj Nathani. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of these purchases.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued after the permissible time limit of 04.07.2022, making the subsequent assessment proceedings legally untenable. Since the issue of jurisdiction was decided in favour of the assessee, the merits of the additions were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard, to ensure the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income is earned by the assessee. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). No evidence was produced to support the claim of change of counsel or the demise of the earlier counsel.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The issue of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The CIT(A) had partly deleted the addition based on the assessee's submissions and evidence regarding coal purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after considering the entire gamut of transactions in the bank account from which purchases and mutual fund investments were made.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 66 days, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the sale of the 1st-floor flat represented a right to obtain a constructed flat, which was a long-term capital asset. It also held that the deposit of capital gains in term deposits, though not strictly under the CGDS, was intended for construction and thus eligible for exemption.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 57 days, holding that it was due to non-service of the assessment order and to ensure the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the CIT(Appeals) had not adjudicated the issues on merit, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the grounds of natural justice and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, providing the assessee one more opportunity.
The ITAT condoned the 101-day delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity of being heard, in line with principles of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on 27.07.2022, which is clearly beyond the permissible time limit. The Tribunal considered the fact that for Assessment Year 2015-16, the period of six years expired on 31.03.2022. Relying on the decision in *Solo Hotels India Pvt. Ltd.* and the concessions made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal*, the Tribunal found that the notice was issued after the expiry of the limitation period. Consequently, the subsequent assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were treated as void. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the assessment proceedings. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was allowed, and all grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal determined that based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rajiv Bansal, the extended time limit for issuing the Section 148 notice for AY 2016-17 was 13.06.2022. As the notice was issued on 20.07.2022, it was beyond the limitation period. Therefore, the Section 148 notice and the consequent assessment order were quashed.
The ITAT condoned the 74-day delay, accepting that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. To ensure natural justice, the tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)' order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, providing the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee filed its return of income within the extended due date as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction under Section 80P of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the 24-day delay in appeal filing and deleted the addition made under Section 69B. It held that the jewellery, being 469.080 grams, was within the 500-gram limit for a normal housewife as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and could be considered Streedhan from accounted sources, especially given the assessee's substantial income of over Rs. 12.25 lakhs.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back, directing the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 330 days considering the facts and circumstances and the assessee being prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the lower appellate authority to provide an opportunity for a hearing, remitting the matter back.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasons provided by the Revenue. However, it was held that the appeal is not maintainable as the tax effect is less than the threshold stipulated by the CBDT circular and no exceptions were demonstrated by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not heard before issuing the intimation u/s.143(1), the issue should be restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, noting that the merits were not addressed, set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the case back to the AO. This was done to provide the assessee one last opportunity to present their case, ensuring principles of natural justice, with a caution for cooperation.
The ITAT condoned the 139-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's lack of knowledge about the online appellate order and the counsel's ill-health. Observing that the assessee failed to submit necessary details during the assessment, the ITAT restored all grounds of appeal back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the enhancement of income by the CIT(A) was in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions as no specific show cause notice was issued to the assessee before enhancement. Therefore, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal found that the shares were acquired through a demerger, which was not disputed, and the allotment was beyond the assessee's control. Since the AO had already accepted the exemption for a portion of the same shares, the entire addition under Section 68 was deleted, and the assessee was granted the benefit of Section 10(38) exemption.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The assessee's cross-objection for AY 2018-19 was allowed, while for AY 2013-14 it was dismissed as infructuous.