Loading ITAT cases…
572 orders · Page 2 of 12
The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that delays in EPF & ESIC payments were due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control, like Sundays falling on due dates or the COVID-19 lockdown. For the second ground, the Tribunal noted that it was not pressed before the CIT(A) and also not pressed by the appellant before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice, though issued after April 1, 2021, was served in accordance with Section 282A. However, since it was issued after the amended provisions of Section 147 came into effect, the assessment order passed under the unamended provisions was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her prima-facie onus by providing necessary documents like D-mat statements, bank statements, and contract notes. It found no evidence of penny stock transactions or direct allegations against the assessee or her broker, and that the AO's addition was based on assumptions and presumptions without corroborative material. Therefore, the exemption claimed under section 10(38) was allowed by deleting the addition.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case had accepted the disallowance based on the assessee's calculation. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no reason to differ from the coordinate bench's decision and directed the AO to accept the assessee's working of disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid. Regarding interest disallowance, it was directed to restrict the disallowance to the interest corresponding to the loan amount advanced to a related party after the borrowed funds were received.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to reasons like mental disturbance and difficulty in tracking communication. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & others, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s dismissal order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in default without deciding the issues on merit, despite the assessee's failure to comply with notices. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee also did not appear before them and did not file any submissions, despite notices. In the absence of any contrary material or reason, and considering the ex-parte nature of the proceedings, the Tribunal found no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found that there was reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to the notices being sent to a wrong email address. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to send notices to the correct email ID and for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution, failing to pass a speaking order on the merits as required by Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on the merits, directing the assessee to be diligent and cooperative.
The Tribunal acknowledged the laches on the part of the assessee in producing documents but considered the peculiar facts. It recognized that bank statements are crucial for proper adjudication of the issue. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer as an exception.
The ITAT observed that both the assessment and first appellate orders were ex-parte and, in the interest of natural justice, remanded the case to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and adjudicate all issues on their merits. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance with the notices issued by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal addressed each ground of appeal. Regarding the alleged commission (Ground 2), the Tribunal found that the assessee was involved in circular trading without actual delivery of goods, as evidenced by the inability to prove movement of goods. Citing decisions in M/s Aspen International Pvt. Ltd. and JCIT (OSD) Vs. M/s Pradip Overseas Ltd., the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 0.30% of the circular trading transactions, as against the 1% estimated by the AO. This resulted in the ground being partly allowed. Ground 1, concerning inadequate opportunity, was dismissed as general and not requiring adjudication. For the disallowance of rent (Ground 3) and preliminary expenses (Ground 4), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity as the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence (rent agreement) or demonstrate error in the AO's partial disallowance of preliminary expenses. These grounds were dismissed. Regarding the difference in total income (Ground 5), the Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the wrong computation was inadvertently filed. Considering this, the issue was restored to the AO for verification and decision. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. The initiation of penalty and charging of interest (Ground 6) were held to be premature and consequential, respectively, leading to dismissal of this ground. The CIT(A)'s confirmation of additions (Ground 7) was addressed by the partial allowance on the commission issue. The operative directions were to restrict the disallowance on commission to 0.30% and restore the income difference issue to the AO.
While the assessee did not deserve leniency due to non-compliance, the Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner could not decide the case properly in the absence of the assessee's submissions. Therefore, for substantial justice, the case is remanded.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal application.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to provide material evidence for profit computation, despite opportunities. Considering the facts, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and for the appellant to produce relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that under Section 250 of the Act, the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits, regardless of the assessee's appearance, and must provide a reasoned order as per Section 250(6). Since the CIT(A) had summarily dismissed the appeal without adjudication on merits, the order was deemed unsustainable in law. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication on merits.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidence and applications filed by the assessee on the ITBA portal, possibly due to technical glitches or oversight. Acknowledging the assessee's valid reason for delayed submission (residing in Japan), the tribunal remanded the case to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering all relevant documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a bonafide reason and no benefit to the assessee in delaying. Regarding the ground of appeal, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee before rejecting the application, as only one day was given to comply with the show cause notice.
The Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to discharge the burden of proof for commercial expediency of interest-free loans. However, the Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner could not decide the issue properly in the absence of reply/documents.
The Tribunal condoned the 36-day delay in filing the first appeal, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 11,000/- in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed relevant documents before the Ld. Commissioner, leading to a dismissal in limine.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the condonation of the 2420-day delay in filing. It further clarified that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer did not act to revive the limitation period, thus the appeal was barred by limitation.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous because the actual tax effect involved, calculated as the difference between assessed and returned tax liability, was Rs.45,08,614/-, which is below the CBDT's prescribed threshold of Rs.50,00,000/- for filing appeals before the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was involved in circular trading without actual delivery of goods, the estimated commission should be restricted to 0.30% of the circular transactions, providing partial relief. Other grounds related to rent, preliminary expenses, and difference in income were dismissed or remanded.
The Tribunal held that dividend income earned on shares donated as corpus, with a direction to treat it as part of the corpus, should also be considered as corpus donation. The CIT(A) correctly followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention of not being granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that in an identical case involving another member of the same society, the Bombay High Court had remanded the matter to the AO. Subsequently, the AO had accepted the compensation as a capital receipt, not taxable, based on previous Tribunal decisions. Since the Revenue Department had accepted similar claims for other members, the Tribunal deleted the addition, treating the compensation as a non-taxable capital receipt.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the penalty assessment was still pending before the CIT(A). The assessee also raised a legal issue regarding a defective penalty notice. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, considering the disposal of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid. Regarding interest disallowance, it was directed to restrict the disallowance to the interest corresponding to the loan amount advanced to a related party after the borrowed funds were received.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must first record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim based on the accounts before invoking Rule 8D. Merely stating that the disallowance was not worked out as per Rule 8D is insufficient. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not sufficiently examined whether the research products qualified as 'information' under the definition of 'Royalty' in the DTAA. Consequently, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, including the assessee's PE claim.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's visit to USA and Zambia resulted in procurement of orders worth US $ 3.9 million. Despite the initial contention that expenses were borne by United International Ltd., the Tribunal found that documentary evidence supported the claim that the expenses were incurred by the assessee and led to business benefits. The Revenue also did not provide evidence to contradict the claim of a personal visit.
The Tribunal held that the issue had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by coordinate benches in preceding years. Following these precedents, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid. Regarding interest disallowance, it was directed to restrict the disallowance to the interest corresponding to the loan amount advanced to a related party after the borrowed funds were received.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. It found that the AO had already examined the share capital issue in the original assessment and a prior reopening, and the second reopening was based on a change of opinion without new tangible material. The Tribunal also noted that statements taken during survey operations lack evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was involved in circular trading without actual delivery of goods, the estimated commission should be restricted to 0.30% of the circular transactions. Other grounds related to rent, preliminary expenses, and difference in income were dismissed or remanded.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were conducted through a recognized stock exchange via banking channels, with STT paid, fulfilling the conditions of Section 68. The addition of alleged commission was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in treating all transactions as unexplained credits. The Tribunal found that many transactions were either declared income, business advances, or genuine purchase/sale of goods, and thus could not be considered unexplained credits.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's conduct was not reasonable, the CIT(A) failed to decide the issue properly due to the lack of documents. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to appear or file submissions despite several notices. However, to ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Ld. Commissioner.
The Tribunal noted that the delay occurred due to the illness of the Legal Representative, which constituted a reasonable cause. Similar views were taken by other benches of the Tribunal and in the case of the assessee's brother, where the delay was condoned.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's negligence but, to ensure adjudication on merits and substantial justice, set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The remand is conditional on the assessee depositing Rs.2,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within 15 days and cooperating with future proceedings, with a warning against further non-compliance.
The Tribunal noted that the delay occurred due to the illness of the Legal Representative, which constituted a reasonable cause. Similar views were taken by other benches of the Tribunal and in the case of the assessee's brother, where the delay was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous years where the Tribunal had decided in favour of the assessee. Following the precedent, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the delay occurred due to the illness of the Legal Representative, which constituted a reasonable cause. Similar views were taken by other benches of the Tribunal and in the case of the assessee's brother, where the delay was condoned.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the consequential assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 cannot stand once the underlying revisionary order u/s 263 has been quashed by the ITAT. Despite the Department's appeal against the ITAT's quashing of the 263 order pending before the High Court, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s view.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38). It noted that the assessee had discharged its prima-facie onus by providing purchase and sale documents, and that the AO had not doubted these documents. The Tribunal relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision with similar facts.
The Tribunal noted that the delay occurred due to the illness of the Legal Representative, which constituted a reasonable cause. Similar views were taken by other benches of the Tribunal and in the case of the assessee's brother, where the delay was condoned.