Loading ITAT cases…
62 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee's unfamiliarity with technology was a sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The case was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to comply with notices.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's consistent non-compliance at all stages and the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the AO's file. The assessee was directed to make full compliance to establish that the credits and investments did not warrant additions or penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without considering the merits. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to produce evidence.
The Tribunal held that payments for ballistic testing without human intervention do not constitute fees for technical services, thus no TDS was required under Section 195. Consequently, there was no failure to disclose material facts, and the reopening under Section 147 was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without considering the merits. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to produce evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's illness might have inhibited his ability to make an effective representation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a due opportunity to comply.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether additions can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. The Supreme Court held that in cases of search under Section 132, the AO assumes jurisdiction for block assessment under Section 153A. If no incriminating material is unearthed, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration other material in respect of completed/unabated assessments. Additions can only be made if there is incriminating material. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT-DR could not point out any incriminating materials recovered during the search that formed the basis of the additions. Therefore, in light of the binding precedent, the additions made were not sustainable. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra vs CIT regarding depreciation. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the facts and ratio of these case laws. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was considered erroneous. The grounds raised in the appeal were allowed. The additional ground regarding the approval under Section 153D was dismissed as it was identical to a ground decided in another appeal, with the finding applying mutatis mutandis. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's husband's imprisonment. Considering the circumstances, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the appeal summarily, which violates Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) must pass a speaking order on merits, even if the appellant is non-compliant.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) refused to accept additional evidence due to non-compliance with Rule 46A. However, the genuineness of expenses cannot be determined without examining this evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without establishing a reasonable cause for non-compliance. The Assessing Officer also failed to make a good case for the levy of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10 IC once for the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA is sufficient for subsequent years, as the option cannot be withdrawn. The assessee met the conditions laid down by CBDT circulars and statutory provisions.
The Tribunal held that while the initial penalty notice might have had a technical flaw, the subsequent search and seizure operation caused significant disruption, creating a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report. Therefore, the penalty was unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the circumstances presented by the assessee. The Tribunal found the CIT's assumption regarding the prematurity of the 80G application to be misplaced and directed both matters to be restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration on merits, after obtaining necessary documentation.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of not filing Form-9A due to accumulated income being below 15% was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's accounts were audited and found it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(Exemption). The assessee was directed to furnish any additional relevant material required by the CIT to establish that funds were spent on the charitable activities for which provisional registration had been granted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the circumstances presented by the assessee. The Tribunal found the CIT's assumption regarding the prematurity of the 80G application to be misplaced and directed both matters to be restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration on merits, after obtaining necessary documentation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(E) erred by not considering the assessee's reply filed on 26.07.2024 and by erroneously assuming the provisional registration was valid beyond 2023-24, making the application not premature.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal under Section 253(3). It agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the addition of Rs. 11,10,678/- for GST expenses was unwarranted as the tax effect was nullified by subsequent accounting entries. The Tribunal further directed the deletion of the Rs. 2,50,000/- addition, finding no legal basis or reasonable justification for its estimation by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the cost of common areas (corridors, parking, etc.) should be included in the cost of flats sold as they are incidental to the business. The AO's method of calculating profit by excluding common areas was found to be incorrect.
The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and did not establish that the non-compliance was without reasonable cause. The AO passed a hasty order without making a good case for the penalty. Thus, the ITAT directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given proper and sufficient opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Exemptions). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of CIT(Exemptions) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the non-processing of revised returns by CPC. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given proper and sufficient opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Exemptions). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of CIT(Exemptions) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the order of the First Appellate Authority had become infructuous because the rectification application under Section 154 had already been allowed by the CPC, Bangalore. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, setting aside the order of the First Appellate Authority.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities' decisions were based on case laws now held to be distinguishable by this Bench. Consequently, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the AO for re-examination of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P, considering a specific order of the Tribunal. For AY 2018-19, the AO was also directed to re-consider the claim for depreciation.
The Tribunal, while noting that the CIT(A) orders were based on distinguishable case laws, restored the appeals to the AO. The AO is to examine the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P in light of the Tribunal's recent order in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that section 54 of the Act is a substantive provision promoting housing, and procedural lapses in depositing unutilized capital gains in a specific scheme should not deny the exemption if the intention to purchase a new property is fulfilled. The assessee had indeed invested the capital gains in purchasing a new residential property within the stipulated period.
The Tribunal held that the case of the assessee was squarely covered by the decisions of the Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT, which accepted similar LTCG claims of a co-owner. The Tribunal agreed that since the co-owner's returned income was accepted, the assessee should also be entitled to similar relief.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities' decisions were based on case laws now held to be distinguishable by this Bench. Consequently, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the AO for re-examination of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P, considering a specific order of the Tribunal. For AY 2018-19, the AO was also directed to re-consider the claim for depreciation.
The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority's remarks regarding the assessee's valuation report were without basis and restored the case to the AO to obtain a report from the Departmental Valuation Officer for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal again if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the annual premium for all three life insurance policies exceeded 10% of the sum assured, thus rendering them ineligible for exemption under Section 10(10D) of the Act. The assessee's alternative plea regarding Section 80C was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority's reasoning for partially sustaining the addition was without sound reasoning. If the assessee's contention was to be believed, it should have been accepted entirely, or rejected entirely. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the remaining addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(E). The matter was restored to the CIT(E)'s file to grant the assessee a proper opportunity to explain its case and furnish the required documents.
The Tribunal held that the charges paid to share brokers for delayed payments were an expenditure necessarily incurred for earning income and should be allowed. The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority's disallowance, based on it being interest on borrowed funds, was an incorrect appreciation of facts.
The Tribunal, while noting that the CIT(A) orders were based on distinguishable case laws, restored the appeals to the AO. The AO is to examine the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P in light of the Tribunal's recent order in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio because the jurisdictional AO did not issue the statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, which is a prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on jurisdictional High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the shares of the beneficiaries were discernible from the return of income, despite the Trust Deed being silent. Therefore, the CPC could not have made a prima-facie adjustment and charged tax at the maximum marginal rate.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition based on surmises and conjectures without bringing any contrary evidence on record. The assessee's explanation regarding cash withdrawals for business purposes, supported by audited books of account and bank statements, was considered sufficient.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order on merits and had passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for simultaneous deductions under Section 80IB and Section 80HHC. This decision is based on pronouncements from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts that allow for such concurrent claims, subject to certain conditions.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance indicated by information in the audit report, even if made under section 143(1), is permissible following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Earlier High Court decisions in favor of the assessee were considered overruled.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance indicated in the audit report, even if not explicitly stated as a disallowance, allows for adjustment under section 143(1)(a). The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd clarified the law, making the disallowance valid.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance indicated in the audit report, when processed under section 143(1), is valid, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the law declared by the Supreme Court has retrospective effect.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Pr.CIT, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal found that the issue of whether the AO passed the assessment order without making necessary inquiries and verifications was a question of fact, dependent on the specific circumstances of the case. Relying on Explanation 2(a) to Section 263(1) of the Act, the Tribunal agreed with the Pr.CIT's finding that the assessment order dated 29.11.2019 was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal observed a drastic increase in cash sales and cash in hand in the period immediately preceding demonetization, which it believed the AO had not adequately examined or verified. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the precedents cited by the assessee, including decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr.CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P.) Ltd. and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Pr.CIT vs. Shreeji Paints (P.) Ltd., stating that those orders were specific to their facts and did not apply to the present case. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue if the AO fails to conduct necessary inquiries and verifications, especially concerning significant cash transactions during sensitive periods like demonetization. The Pr.CIT's power under Section 263 is to ensure that the AO has applied his mind to the facts and made proper inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the financial capacity and genuineness of the unsecured loan transactions. The claim of capital gains being bogus was also not adequately rebutted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to submit details. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It set aside the impugned appellate order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The CIT(A) observed that the AO had inconsistently treated the assessee as both an entry provider and a beneficiary. The CIT(A) directed the AO to investigate the remaining beneficiaries, suggesting that only commission income should be taxed if the assessee was indeed an entry provider.