Loading ITAT cases…
382 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Tribunal held that the approval for the assessment orders was granted mechanically without proper application of mind by the approving authority. It noted several errors and inconsistencies in the approval process, indicating a procedural lapse.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment did not comply with the mandatory condition under Section 149(1)(b) as it did not specify that the escaped income was likely to amount to Rs. 1 lakh or more. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
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 noted that the assessee did not produce any evidence nor participated in the appellate proceedings before them, similar to their conduct before the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal decided not to take a lenient view and remanded the matter back to the CIT Appeal.
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 territorial jurisdiction of the ITAT is determined by the situs of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the appeal filed before the Mumbai Bench was not maintainable.
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 noted that the assessee made no compliance to the notices and the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh decision.
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 noted that the assessee did not produce any evidence nor participated in the appellate proceedings before them, similar to their conduct before the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal decided not to take a lenient view and remanded the matter back to the CIT Appeal.
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 held that the approval for the assessment orders was granted without proper application of mind by the approving authority. It found that the approval process was a mere formality, evidenced by various errors and procedural lapses.
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 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 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 noted the significant delays in issuing hearing notices and the assessee's claim of not receiving them properly, making their contention probable. Considering the facts and the need for substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to grant an opportunity to the assessee.
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 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 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 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 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 noted that a hard copy of the appeal was previously filed and disposed of by a coordinate bench. The e-filed appeal was therefore considered a duplicate and infructuous.
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 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 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 under Section 153D was granted by the Additional Commissioner, who is included within the definition of Joint Commissioner as per Section 2(28C) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the approval was valid.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The additions for ground rent and sale of cooling tower plant material were also rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The additions for ground rent and sale of cooling tower plant material were also rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had requested a personal hearing from the CIT(A) but it was not granted, which violated the principles of natural justice under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to decide the appeal afresh after granting a personal hearing.
The Tribunal held that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares could not be doubted as the assessee provided documentary evidence, and the AO did not establish the assessee's involvement in price rigging. The additions made by the AO were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C for non-abated assessment years require incriminating material, upholding the CIT(A)'s view. The Tribunal also directed consequential effect to be given to earlier year's orders regarding depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper dissatisfaction regarding the assessee's suo-moto disallowance before invoking Rule 8D. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the profit from off-market F&O commodity transactions cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, as the transactions were supported by documentation and payments. Consequently, the set-off of business losses against this profit is permissible.
The Tribunal held that the long-term capital gains earned on the sale of shares cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer failed to establish the assessee's involvement in price rigging and did not find fault with the documentation provided.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 153C was warranted as there were no incriminating materials found during the search, and the assessment had reached finality. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground for statistical purposes, stating that if disallowances on assets were deleted in earlier years, no further depreciation disallowance would be required.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices which were not responded to. However, to provide an opportunity for justice and a proper hearing, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide concrete evidence linking the assessee to the impugned cash loan transactions. Relying on a similar case, the Tribunal found that the interpretation of coded entries without further corroboration was insufficient to sustain the addition.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance and non-submission of details. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case and decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the OCDs did not exist during the relevant previous year, and the commercial arrangement for redemption premium occurred after the relevant period. Therefore, the deduction could not be allowed for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that the confusion arose from a mistake in the Tax Audit Report and that the books of accounts should prevail. If the factual aspects presented by the assessee's AR are found to be correct upon verification by the AO, no disallowance would be warranted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to grant a personal hearing to the Appellant despite a specific request and the existence of management disputes. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, directing it to decide the appeal afresh after granting a personal hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative credit society and its income from investments in other cooperative societies (including cooperative banks) is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The issue was found to be well-settled by previous orders of the Tribunal in similar cases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 106 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the genuine personal difficulties faced by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside, and the issues of cash deposits and unexplained investment in property were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared income under section 44AD, implying that proper books of accounts might not have been maintained. Considering this and the ex-parte nature of the earlier order, the Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to explain the deposits.
The Tribunal noted that the sales were not disputed and there was no discrepancy between purchases and sales declared. Therefore, the addition should be restricted to the extent of bringing the gross profit on alleged bogus purchases to the rate of other genuine purchases. The addition was accordingly restricted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a quantitative chart and bills to support their purchases and sales, and that there was no discrepancy in sales. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal held that additions should be restricted to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases in line with genuine purchases.