Loading ITAT cases…
382 orders · Page 2 of 8
The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders was granted without proper application of mind by the approving authority. The Tribunal noted several errors in the assessment orders and the approval process, including approvals granted for non-existent entities and draft orders being approved before finalization.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders in search cases must not be a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders in search cases must not be a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the assessment order before granting approval.
The Tribunal noted that two assessment orders were passed for the same assessment year under different PANs. The CIT(Appeals) had not considered the cash deposits and credit entries in the bank account. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh consideration on merit, providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the source of the deposits.
The Tribunal held that the approval for assessment orders under section 153D was granted by an Additional Commissioner, which is legally equivalent to a Joint Commissioner as per the definition in the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal noted significant procedural irregularities and non-application of mind by the approving authority, as evidenced by draft orders containing approval dates and numbers before their actual approval, and approvals granted for non-existent entities.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the approving authority was without application of mind, as evidenced by several errors in the assessment orders and the approval process. The Tribunal noted that the approval was treated as a mere formality and that the approving authority was not aware of all the issues involved.
The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders was granted by an Additional Commissioner, which is legally permissible as per the inclusive definition of 'Joint Commissioner' in Section 2(28C) of the Act. However, the Tribunal also noted the assessee's contention regarding the mechanical approval without application of mind, which was not adequately addressed by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal held that an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is a competent authority to grant approval under Section 153D, as the definition of 'Joint Commissioner' in Section 2(28C) is inclusive and covers Additional Commissioners. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically without application of mind, rendering the assessment orders bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is a competent authority to grant approval under section 153D, as the definition of 'Joint Commissioner' includes 'Additional Commissioner'. However, the Tribunal also noted that the approvals were granted mechanically without proper application of mind, indicating errors in the assessment process.
The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders was granted without application of mind, as evidenced by procedural errors and the approval of orders for non-existent entities. Therefore, the assessment orders are invalid.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is a competent authority to grant approval under section 153D, as the definition of 'Joint Commissioner' is inclusive and includes an Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal also noted that the approval process was not mechanically done without application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders was granted mechanically without application of mind by the approving authority. It also noted that the approval was obtained from an Additional Commissioner instead of a Joint Commissioner as required by Section 153D.
The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders under Section 153D of the Act was granted without proper application of mind by the approving authority. The Tribunal noted several errors and procedural irregularities in the approval process, indicating it was a mere formality.
The Tribunal found that the approval for the assessment orders was granted by an Additional Commissioner, which is legally permissible as per the definition of Joint Commissioner. However, the Tribunal noted significant procedural lapses and non-application of mind by the approving authority, as evidenced by errors in the draft assessment orders and approvals for non-existent entities.
The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders in search cases must not be a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment in search cases is not a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the assessment order before granting approval.
The Tribunal noted that the approval under Section 153D was granted by the Additional CIT well before the due date, unlike in the case laws cited by the assessee. Therefore, the assessment orders were not quashed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders in search cases must not be a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the facts of the case.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under section 153D was mechanical and without application of mind, as evidenced by the short time between submission and approval. Therefore, the assessment orders passed based on this approval were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders in search cases must not be a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders in search cases must not be a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that provisions for pit covering and post-closure expenses are allowable expenditures. They followed the decisions of various coordinate benches of the ITAT on similar issues.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the approving authority was not a mere formality and required application of mind. The assessee's arguments regarding the approving authority's lack of awareness and the existence of errors in the assessment orders were considered.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not gone into the merits of the case. Since the appellant did not appear and present evidence, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the case on merit after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and explain the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is a competent authority to grant approval under Section 153D, as the definition of 'Joint Commissioner' includes 'Additional Commissioner'. However, the Tribunal also noted that the approval process appeared to be mechanical and lacked application of mind in some instances.
The Tribunal found several procedural irregularities in the assessment orders, including issues with draft assessment order approvals, incorrect section usage, and failure to consider assessee submissions. These issues led to the quashing of the assessment orders.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Ld. Departmental Representative could not controvert the tax computation presented by the assessee's counsel.
The Tribunal held that the prior approval required under Section 153D of the Act for assessment orders passed after search/requisition is not a mechanical exercise. The approving authority must apply its mind to the assessment proposal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. It found that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence and that the disallowance of depreciation was unwarranted as the AO did not establish non-genuine entries. The ad-hoc disallowance of CSR expenses was also deleted as the AO failed to verify the genuineness of expenses.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the approving authority for the assessment orders was done without proper application of mind. This was evidenced by errors in the assessment orders, the approving authority not addressing the assessee's points, and the approval process appearing to be a mere formality.
The Tribunal held that the AO levied penalty for both concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars, despite initiating proceedings for only one. The Tribunal also noted that making an incorrect claim does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, and rejection of a claim does not ipso facto lead to penalty.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 4,66,797, considering the difference between deposits and withdrawals, and the Tribunal noted that the sales and purchases were part of business activity reflected in the bank statement and confirmed by parties. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the taxability of business income and consultancy services (Issues 1, 3, and 4), the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It held that investments were made by foreign companies, not the assessee, and a shareholder is distinct from a company. The Tribunal found no evidence that the funds transferred were from undisclosed sources in India or that they originated from income accrued or arisen in India. The Tribunal noted that investments were made directly by foreign companies into Indian companies and could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee without lifting the corporate veil. The Tribunal also distinguished the current year's facts from AY 2008-09, where an amount was credited to the assessee's NRE account in India, which was not the case here. Regarding the India-UAE DTAA (Issue 2), the Tribunal did not explicitly rule on the applicability or residency, as it dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning the taxability of the income itself. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs 3,25,50,00,000/- and the investment of Rs 94,44,74,054/-. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was treated as academic and dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) issued several notices during the Covid-19 period and a subsequent notice after a gap of three years. It was unclear if the last notice was served. Considering these circumstances and for the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the primary onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of share applicants. Once discharged, the onus shifts to the department. In this case, the assessee discharged its onus, and the Assessing Officer failed to bring any evidence to show the transactions were not genuine.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under section 153D of the Act by the approving authority were without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Consequently, the addition to book profit under Section 115JB was also deleted.