Loading ITAT cases…
239 orders · Page 5 of 5
The ITAT, noting the lack of proper compliance and opportunity of being heard, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, granting the assessee a proper opportunity to make submissions on the merits of its appeal, with the possibility of remanding to the AO if necessary.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee is granted another opportunity to provide evidence for the disallowed expenses, specifically to produce recipients of commission, subject to paying a cost of ₹50,000/-. Failure to comply or produce witnesses will result in the AO drawing an adverse inference.
The Tribunal considered the AR's prayer and, in the interest of justice, restored both appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to readjudicate the issues afresh after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application presuming the activities were not charitable without considering that Section 12A approval was granted and not cancelled. The assessee was an old trust who filed under the wrong clause.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the AR's prayer and, in the interest of justice, restored both appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to readjudicate the issues afresh after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. It was held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence (confirmations, bank statements, IT returns of the lender, lender active on ROC portal) to prove the genuineness of the loan. The Ld. AO's failure to conduct independent enquiries and reliance solely on suspicion rendered the additions under Section 68 and 69C unjustified.
The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary threshold prescribed by the CBDT Circular. Upon examination, the tribunal found that the issue did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the Circular, thus rejecting the Department's contention.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. It was held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence (confirmations, bank statements, IT returns of the lender, lender active on ROC portal) to prove the genuineness of the loan. The Ld. AO's failure to conduct independent enquiries and reliance solely on suspicion rendered the additions under Section 68 and 69C unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that composing and DTP services are not "technical services" as defined under Section 194J. Thus, the assessee correctly deducted TDS at 2% under Section 194C. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the demand.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Regarding the Rs.96,000/- in cash as gifts, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's finding or reasoning on this specific issue. It is implied that this point was not pressed or was decided against the assessee as the overall result is 'Partly Allowed'. 2. On the gift of Rs. 5,84,000/- from an HUF, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s action in principle, agreeing that an HUF, as per the amended Section 56(2)(vii) and its Explanation, is not to be considered a donor to an individual. The Tribunal distinguished the cases relied upon by the assessee, particularly noting that the decision in Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia is no longer applicable due to subsequent legislative developments. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's alternative plea for exemption under Section 10(2) of the Act. Since no fact-finding was done on this aspect, the Tribunal set aside the addition under Section 56(2) and remanded it to the Ld. AO for reconsideration under Section 10(2), directing the AO to provide the assessee an opportunity to present necessary facts. 3. Concerning the Rs.2,99,133/- from commodity trading, the Tribunal set aside the addition and remanded the issue to the Ld. AO for verification. The Tribunal noted that while off-market trades are not illegal, a greater onus is on the assessee to prove their bonafides. The AO is directed to verify the impugned transactions based on specific pointers: price, dates, movement to/from depository, and payment method/dates. The issue of the correct PAN on the transaction will also be examined. The ratio for issue 2 is that legislative intent, as reflected in the specific wording of Section 56(2)(vii) and its Explanation, must be strictly followed, and an HUF is not a donor to an individual. The ratio for issue 3 is that while off-market transactions are permissible, the assessee bears a higher burden of proof to establish their genuineness.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine the issues afresh and pass an order after providing due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that belated filing of Forms 10B/10BB is a technical breach and cannot be the sole reason to deny exemption under Sections 11, 12, or 10(23C), especially when the audit reports were available. Following the Gujarat High Court, the intimations issued under Section 143(1) denying the benefit of exemption were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including ITRs, audited financial statements, and bank statements of subscribers, to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO and CIT(A) failed to point out any defects in these documents or conduct a meaningful inquiry.
The Tribunal condoned a 32-day delay in filing the appeal. It noted that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte without adequate opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was decided ex-parte by both lower authorities without deciding the issues on merit. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal ruled that composing and DTP services are not "technical services" as defined under Section 194J. Thus, the assessee correctly deducted TDS at 2% under Section 194C. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the demand.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹1,86,50,058 made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was against the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed details of loan creditors, including their names and addresses, ITR acknowledgements, final accounts, bank statements, and confirmations. The loan creditors had also complied with the notices issued under Section 133(6) and summons under Section 131 of the Act. The Tribunal observed that Section 69A deals with unexplained money not recorded in the books of account and is not applicable to unsecured loans. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus, and the onus had shifted to the department. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Pr. CIT-9, Kolkata vs. Sreeleathers, which held that in the absence of any adverse findings, orders treating loans as unexplained were perverse. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid because it was not issued in consonance with the prescribed format in CBDT Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. The Tribunal relied on the co-ordinate bench's decision in Shib Nath Ghosh Vs. ITO, which held that CBDT instructions are mandatory and binding on income tax authorities, and failure to adhere to them renders proceedings invalid. The Tribunal further cited the Supreme Court's decision in UCO Bank, emphasizing that CBDT circulars issued under Section 119 of the Act are binding. Consequently, the Tribunal found the notice to be an invalid notice and the assessment framed consequentially to be invalid and void ab initio. The assessment order was quashed. Other grounds raised on merit were left undecided.
The Tribunal ruled that composing and DTP services are not "technical services" as defined under Section 194J. Thus, the assessee correctly deducted TDS at 2% under Section 194C. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the demand.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear despite notices. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after affording a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal ruled that composing and DTP services are not "technical services" as defined under Section 194J. Thus, the assessee correctly deducted TDS at 2% under Section 194C. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the demand.
The Tribunal ruled that composing and DTP services are not "technical services" as defined under Section 194J. Thus, the assessee correctly deducted TDS at 2% under Section 194C. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the demand.
The Tribunal held that belated filing of Forms 10B/10BB is a technical breach and cannot be the sole reason to deny exemption under Sections 11, 12, or 10(23C), especially when the audit reports were available. Following the Gujarat High Court, the intimations issued under Section 143(1) denying the benefit of exemption were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid. The AO's assessment was found to be neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as the AO had duly examined the ICDS compliance.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. This decision was based on the principle of consistency, as similar calculations of capital gain/loss were accepted in the cases of other co-owners.
The Tribunal held that the amount received from a relative is exempt from tax under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, irrespective of whether a formal gift deed was executed. The transaction was through banking channels, and the source was from a relative.
The tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect and not falling under any exception as per the relevant CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal, following previous decisions and the High Court's ruling in a similar case, held that the sale proceeds of investments, even if not yielding profit, should not be treated as unexplained cash credit. The addition made by the AO was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were indeed vague, scanty, and ambiguous, lacking specific details of the transactions, dates, and parties involved. The AO failed to apply his mind to the information received and record all necessary details in the reasons. This was found to be not in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Delhi), which emphasized the need for clear and unambiguous reasons. The Tribunal quoted extensively from the Delhi High Court judgment to support its finding that the reasons recorded were totally vague, scanty, and ambiguous, and did not disclose the AO's mind regarding the nature, amount, or parties of the transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reopening of assessment and the consequent order framed by the AO. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that even on merits, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) could not be sustained. The assessee had sold shares purchased in earlier years, and the revenue had accepted these investments in the earlier years. The Tribunal found no further investigation by the AO into the documents furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 23.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 is indeed barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the fact that the notice was issued beyond the permissible period. The Tribunal noted that the relaxation granted by TOLA from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 is not applicable to the impugned assessment year. This conclusion was drawn from the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), which was subsequently followed by the Delhi High Court in Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal also acknowledged that the Rajasthan High Court, in WP No. 3667 of 2023, had taken a similar view. Therefore, considering the facts of the assessee's case in light of these judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal found the reopening of assessment to be barred by limitation and accordingly quashed the same. The operative direction was to quash the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal ruled that the late fee under Section 234E for FY 2013-14 was unsustainable because the enabling provision in Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from 01.06.2015. It also held that the interest under Section 201(1A) was not chargeable as the assessee had deposited the TDS within the statutory due dates, and therefore directed the Assessing Officer to delete both the late fee and interest.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that an official decision or approval only becomes effective upon its communication to the concerned party. Since the notice under Section 148 was issued prior to the communication of the Section 151 approval to the Assessing Officer, the initiation of reassessment proceedings was invalid. Consequently, the notice and all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, were deemed null and void.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s deletion of ₹1,23,000 had attained finality. Regarding the sustained additions of ₹30,000 (Section 68) and ₹13,307 (undisclosed bank balance), the Tribunal restored these issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A). The matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that fresh TDS exemption certificates were filed before it, which were not produced before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for examination of these new documents and to provide relief as per law.
The Tribunal noted that fresh TDS exemption certificates were filed before it, which were not produced before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for examination of these new documents and to provide relief as per law.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not dispute the genuineness of the prior withdrawals or bank records. It held that neither non-matching denominations nor staggered deposits were valid grounds for addition, especially considering RBI restrictions during demonetisation. The onus shifts to the Revenue to prove alternative use of cash once withdrawals are established. The addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was served after 148 days from the due time, making it barred by limitation. This decision was based on a co-ordinate bench ruling in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10.