Loading ITAT cases…
273 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) should have considered the report and decided the appeal afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It noted that both the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds on merit.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without the assessee's participation. The CIT(A) also failed to decide all grounds of appeal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing reasons of illness, demise of a key person, and the pandemic as sufficient cause. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was set aside for de novo assessment, the penalty appeal also deserves to be allowed. The Assessing Officer is at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after the de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal directed the assessee to file an application for condonation of delay or to explain why there was no delay. The CIT(A) was instructed to consider this application liberally and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without the assessee's participation. The CIT(A) also failed to decide all grounds of appeal on merits.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reduction of the commission rate to 0.15% was reasonable. However, it found that the basis of the addition (tally data/forensic report) was not confronted to the assessee, violating natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the original assessment order was bad in law and a nullity because a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued. Consequently, revision proceedings under Section 263 based on such an invalid assessment order are also invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeals. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned and discussed each aspect in detail. It noted that the assessee had provided all necessary documents and evidence regarding the loan creditors, and the AO had not pointed out any defects. The Tribunal emphasized that the loans had been repaid by the assessee, and the Ld. CIT(A) had categorically found that all details and evidences were furnished by both the assessee and the loan creditors. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that once repayment of the loan is established, credit entries cannot be viewed in isolation. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (SC) regarding jurisdiction in unabated assessments. The Tribunal concluded that no addition can be made when the assessee has furnished all evidence and the loans have been repaid, citing decisions of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in similar cases, particularly the decision in Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the appellate order and dismissed the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeals. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned and discussed each aspect in detail. It noted that the assessee had provided all necessary documents and evidence regarding the loan creditors, and the AO had not pointed out any defects. The Tribunal emphasized that the loans had been repaid by the assessee, and the Ld. CIT(A) had categorically found that all details and evidences were furnished by both the assessee and the loan creditors. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that once repayment of the loan is established, credit entries cannot be viewed in isolation. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (SC) regarding jurisdiction in unabated assessments. The Tribunal concluded that no addition can be made when the assessee has furnished all evidence and the loans have been repaid, citing decisions of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in similar cases, particularly the decision in Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the appellate order and dismissed the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was bad in law and quashed the consequential assessment order. The Tribunal found that CBDT Notification No. S.O. 2752(E) dated 22.10.2014 mandates the assessment of companies and their directors/key personnel under the same Assessing Officer. Since the assessee company was assessed under ITO Ward-10(2), Kolkata, the assessment framed by DCIT Circle-12(1), Kolkata, violated this notification. Therefore, the notice under Section 143(2) and the subsequent assessment were quashed. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was unabated on the date of search, and the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) had expired. Consequently, any addition under Section 153A could only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal observed that the AO relied on the profit and loss account for additions related to share sales, and it was admitted that no incriminating material was found regarding these transactions during the search. Therefore, the additions made were without jurisdiction. The Tribunal allowed the legal and jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee. The appeal in Saloni Bhalotia's case was allowed mutatis mutandis.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that receipts from customers in the ordinary course of business, adjusted against sales, do not warrant an addition under Section 68. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be well-reasoned and speaking.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that receipts from customers in the ordinary course of business, adjusted against sales, do not warrant an addition under Section 68. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be well-reasoned and speaking.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act was bad in law and the consequential assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was quashed. This was based on CBDT Notification No. S.O. 2752(E) dated October 22, 2014, which mandates that companies and their directors/key personnel are to be assessed under the same Assessing Officer. Since the assessee's company was assessed by ITO Ward-10(2), Kolkata, the DCIT Circle-12(1), Kolkata, lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal allowed the first legal issue raised by the assessee. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the assessment was unabated on the date of search, as the time limit for issuing notice under section 143(2) had expired. Therefore, additions could only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. The AO's additions were based on the profit and loss account, which did not constitute incriminating material seized during the search. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order and the additions made. The appeal in the case of Saloni Bhalotia was allowed mutatis mutandis. The ratio is that a notice under section 143(2) issued by an officer without jurisdiction, or in an unabated assessment without incriminating material, renders the entire assessment proceedings invalid. The operative direction is that the appeals of both assessees are allowed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was invalid. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, as the AO had examined the receipts and any discrepancy was neutralized by the Section 80IA deduction.
The Tribunal held that the reopening for AY 2016-17 was invalid due to improper sanction from the competent authority under Section 151 of the Act. For AY 2015-16, the reopening was found to be barred by limitation as the notice was issued beyond the permissible period.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reduction of the commission rate to 0.15% was reasonable. However, it found that the basis of the addition (tally data/forensic report) was not confronted to the assessee, violating natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the reopening for AY 2016-17 was invalid due to improper sanction from the competent authority under Section 151 of the Act. For AY 2015-16, the reopening was found to be barred by limitation as the notice was issued beyond the permissible period.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was framed without jurisdiction as Section 151A of the IT Act, which governs faceless assessment, was not yet effective on the date of the assessment order. Therefore, the assessment order could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was framed by a non-jurisdictional AO, violating CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Therefore, the assessment order was considered invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to furnish some evidence and, to ensure natural justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances. It also remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence, ensuring the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not in a position to present all evidence and, to ensure natural justice, decided to provide one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee was not in a position to file all evidence before the CIT(Appeals) and, in the interest of natural justice, remitted the matter back for a fresh examination of documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not in a position to present all evidence and, to ensure natural justice, decided to provide one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to provide evidence, decided to provide one more opportunity to ensure natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the lower appellate authority for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(E)'s file for readjudication. The assessee will be given an adequate opportunity to produce details.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee will be given an adequate opportunity to produce details.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals before both the CIT(Appeals) and itself, citing the principle of natural justice. The tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principle of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh examination of the documents. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to appear or file some evidence before the CIT(Appeals). To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's indisposition. However, due to the lack of documentary evidence and to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's indisposition. However, due to the lack of documentary evidence and to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances. It then remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present her documents and for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the matter and allow the TDS credit as per Form 26AS.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not file some evidence before the Assessing Officer and requested a fresh examination. To uphold natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, with a caution to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to appear or file some evidence before the CIT(Appeals). To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 67 should not preclude the assessee from claiming FTC, as it is a vested right. The provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, making the FTC claim allowable.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the additions leading to the penalty were deleted in the quantum appeal. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-computation of penalty after considering the quantum appeal's findings and providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to make necessary inquiries and examine the validity of the assessee's claims regarding foreign exchange and commodity hedging losses. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the discrepancy in names was clarified by an affidavit, and the clerical error in the bank balance was substantiated with bank statements. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the assessee's claim of business sales being deposited, decided to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to be given a proper opportunity to be heard and was cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on delay without considering the merits. The matter was set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the 'record' for rectification under Section 154 includes all proceedings on which the assessment order is based, not just the assessment order itself. Since the evidence showed the assets were acquired before the specified date, the mistake in the return was apparent from the record and liable for rectification.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to sufficient cause and ought to have been condoned. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed most of the Revenue's grounds of appeal, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. However, the issue regarding warranty provision was remanded back to the AO for detailed examination due to insufficient documentation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction constituted a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-computation after granting the legitimate deduction.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses do not constitute an international transaction as defined under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Following its own previous decisions and High Court judgments, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of AMP expenses.