Loading ITAT cases…
284 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal found that the trades were executed on the NSEL platform within prescribed timings and through banking channels, with buy and sell quantities matching. Documentary evidence was submitted by the assessee, refuting allegations of non-submission and bogus transactions.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance at both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) levels. However, in the interest of justice, the appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was mechanical and non-speaking, lacking proper adjudication on the issues raised by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the payments made during the year were allowable deductions under Section 43B, as certified by the tax auditor. The CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding the merger of orders was found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors. The repayment of loans in subsequent years and the deduction of TDS were also considered significant.
The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 154 and its confirmation by the CIT(A) were bad in law as there was no mistake apparent from the order dated 9.5.2018. It was also held that the chargeability of interest under Section 234C was a debatable issue in this case.
The Tribunal noted that the trust was incorporated after the cut-off date of April 1, 2021, and therefore, could not have had prior registration. The CIT(E) wrongly cancelled the registration as void ab initio. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was vague and defective as it did not specify the limb under which the penalty was proposed. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's mental disturbance due to marital separation as a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also noted the ex-parte nature of the AO's order.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without jurisdiction as it was completed prior to the notification conferring jurisdiction on the NFAC for faceless assessments. Therefore, the assessment order was considered null and void.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) after compliance with Section 148 is a mandatory requirement. Failure to issue this notice renders the assessment invalid and a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal held that when the assessee furnishes all requisite evidences for loan creditors and the loan is repaid, Section 68 cannot be invoked. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal found that the authorities below relied on third-party statements without allowing cross-examination.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of the loan transaction, its assignment, and subsequent repayment through banking channels. The allegation that M/s Saffire Exports & Agency Pvt. Ltd. was a shell company was not substantiated.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) for AY 2018-19 was invalid as it provided less than the mandatory seven days for compliance. Similarly, for AY 2019-20, the notice under Section 148 was deemed invalid due to the absence of a signature.
The Tribunal held that when material found in a search of a third party is used for assessment, the AO must follow the procedure under Section 153C, not Section 147. Since the AO failed to do so, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors. The repayment of loans in subsequent years and the deduction of TDS were also considered significant.
The Tribunal held that when the assessee furnishes all requisite evidences for loan creditors and the loan is repaid, Section 68 cannot be invoked. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal found that the authorities below relied on third-party statements without allowing cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) for AY 2018-19 was invalid as it provided less than the mandatory seven days for compliance. Similarly, for AY 2019-20, the notice under Section 148 was deemed invalid due to the absence of a signature.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the consultant's negligence and the delay should have been condoned. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the merits, violating Section 250(6). The appeal was restored to the AO for a decision on merits after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the profit estimation should be restricted to 1.5%, as voluntarily offered by the assessee. Therefore, the AO was directed to compute the gross profit at 1.5% on the total gross profit for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the profit estimation should be restricted to 1.5% as initially offered. Accordingly, the AO was directed to compute the gross profit at 1.5% of the total debit transaction.
The Tribunal held that the purpose of purchase/investment in movable and immovable properties is concrete and specific, especially for a charitable trust running an educational institution with ongoing development projects. The Tribunal found that the lack of detailed plans in Form 10 should not be fatal to the exemption claim.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without following the prescribed procedure for conversion to complete scrutiny. This violated CBDT instructions and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte assessment and the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This is to allow the assessee to present all relevant documents and for a fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice.
The ITAT found that the assessee's explanation regarding illness and lack of awareness of the CIT(A) order warranted a fresh look. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the additional evidence and disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 32AC(1A) as the claim was admissible. However, since the claim was not examined by the AO, the issue was restored to the AO for limited verification.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn because the issues had been resolved by the Assessing Officer and TDS credit was allowed.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn because the issues had been resolved by the Assessing Officer and TDS credit was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's submission regarding repayment of loans and the need for proper verification of documents, in light of Kolkata High Court judgments, warranted further examination. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for tea manufacturing companies, income is assessed under Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, where 60% is agricultural income and 40% is taxable. Therefore, disallowances related to employee contributions should be restricted to 40% of the total amount.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the ACIT was in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 regarding pecuniary jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this notice was invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 32AC(1A) as the claim was admissible. However, since the claim was not examined by the AO, the issue was restored to the AO for limited verification.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits due to non-compliance by the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-examination.
The Tribunal restored the issues in both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee was directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the losses from AY 2017-18 were regular business losses, as established in the assessee's own case for that year. Therefore, the set-off claimed for AY 2018-19 should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was wrongly made as the balance sheet and bank statements indicated no increase in share capital/premium during the year. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was also considered genuine due to non-service of assessment orders.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the consequent assessment order were invalid because the approval for reopening the assessment was obtained from the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (CCIT), as the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Supreme Court decisions stating that the proviso to Section 151, allowing exclusion of time, could not be applied retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 148A(d) was obtained from an incorrect authority (Principal CIT instead of the specified authority under Section 151(ii)) for an assessment year where the three-year period had expired. This non-compliance vitiated the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the bank guarantee commission and transaction charges were directly related to the assessee's derivative trading business and thus allowable. The invocation of Rule 8D by the AO was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment order were barred by limitation. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, which stipulated that such notices must be issued within the surviving period of limitation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the Assessing Officer had exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by making additions on issues not mentioned in the notice. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the valuation report.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing all necessary documentation for the loans, and the AO failed to conduct further independent inquiries to rebut the same. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the issue of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is debatable and pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, such a disallowance is not permissible in an intimation under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that since the assessee disclosed all transactions in its books of account, the charge of concealment of income was incorrect. Disagreement by the AO with entries in the books does not make the assessee liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c).