Loading ITAT cases…
734 orders · Page 10 of 15
The Tribunal held that there was no delay in filing the appeal, or if there was a delay, sufficient cause was provided. The Bench decided to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits, referencing a Bombay High Court ruling that appellate authorities cannot dismiss appeals solely on grounds of delay. The appeal was remanded to the Ld. Addl.CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The ITAT condoned the assessee's 85-day delay in filing the appeal before it and, applying principles of natural justice, remanded the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for a *de novo* assessment on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the revised claim of deduction under section 80P is admitted because the delay in filing the revised return was condoned by the PCIT. The appeal grounds are restored to the Jurisdictional AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider the property's value as per the registered valuer's report of Rs. 28.68 Crores. The difference between this value and the sale consideration was rightly held to be taxable as deemed dividend.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Viswas Scheme and submitted that the appeals should be treated as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive them if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal held that for Section 14A disallowance, only investments yielding tax-free income should be considered, and directed a re-computation. For the TP adjustment, the Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd., holding it applicable to both inbound and outbound transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider the property's value as per the registered valuer's report of Rs. 28.68 Crores. The difference between this value and the sale consideration was rightly held to be taxable as deemed dividend.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the Assessee had chosen to resolve the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024. The dismissal includes a liberty to restore or revive the appeal if the VSV application does not materialize or is not accepted by the department.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice under Section 148 was invalid because the prior approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, as required by Section 151(ii) for reassessments initiated beyond three years. Consequently, the assessment order under Section 147 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance based solely on an investigation report without independent verification was unsustainable. The assessee had provided documentary evidence and made payments through banking channels, and the AO failed to disprove the genuineness of the purchases.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of nine days in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) should not dismiss an appeal based solely on non-appearance without adjudicating the merits. One more opportunity is granted to the appellant to explain the sources of additions.
The Tribunal admitted the signed copy of the contracts as additional evidence, noting that the failure to submit them earlier was due to inadvertent mistakes during online filing. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider the property's value as per the registered valuer's report of Rs. 28.68 Crores. The difference between this value and the sale consideration was rightly held to be taxable as deemed dividend.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider the property's value as per the registered valuer's report of Rs. 28.68 Crores. The difference between this value and the sale consideration was rightly held to be taxable as deemed dividend.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the assessee had filed an application under the DTVSV-24 scheme and paid the tax. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the DTVSV-24 settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Viswas Scheme and submitted that the appeals should be treated as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive them if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in confirming the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished confirmations from the creditors, their PAN details, and bank statements reflecting the credit entries. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought any material on record to controvert the evidence produced by the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that once the assessee establishes the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction by producing documentary evidence, the onus shifts to the Revenue to prove that the cash credit is indeed unexplained. Since the Revenue failed to discharge this onus, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition of ₹1,00,00,000/-.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider the property's value as per the registered valuer's report of Rs. 28.68 Crores. The difference between this value and the sale consideration was rightly held to be taxable as deemed dividend.
The tribunal, following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal, found that the approval for reopening was invalid. Consequently, it set aside the impugned notice for reopening the assessment and quashed the resultant assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the conditions for claiming bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income Tax Act were fulfilled. The AO's reasoning was based on surmises and conjectures and not relevant for allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was well-reasoned and upheld it. The deletion was justified because the quantum assessment proceedings had been restored to the AO and penalty on estimated additions is liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 69A for the purchase of jewelry was not tenable in the assessment year under consideration. The assessment year for the seized jewelry should be the year of search (AY 2019-20), not the year the income was offered (AY 2018-19).
The Tribunal held that the entire assessment was based on wrong facts, as the assessee was engaged in share trading and had not claimed any exempt income under Section 10(38). The additions made under Section 68 amounted to double addition of the same transactions and therefore did not survive.
The Tribunal held that the entire assessment was based on wrong facts, as the assessee was engaged in share trading and had not claimed any exempt income under Section 10(38). The additions made under Section 68 amounted to double addition of the same transactions and therefore did not survive.
The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing ex-parte as the assessee did not appear and no adjournment was sought. The Tribunal found that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and no application for condonation of delay was made.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it in limine. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The ITAT held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment was bad in law. The tribunal found that the assessee had not failed to disclose material facts and that a scrutiny assessment had already been made, making the reassessment invalid after four years.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law and quashed the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the very basis of reopening was based on erroneous facts. Firstly, the assessee had not claimed any long-term capital gains. The assessee's profit and loss account showed revenue from operations including sale of shares, and nowhere did it show or claim long-term capital gain or set off of any loss from alleged LTCG. The assessee had also provided scrip-wise and quantitative details of sale and purchase. Crucially, the assessee had objected to the reopening, stating that a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) had already been made, which was contrary to the AO's belief that no such assessment was done. This meant that Explanation 2(b) to Section 147 was not applicable. Furthermore, since the reopening was sought after more than four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the first proviso to Section 147 applied, requiring a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Tribunal found no whisper of such failure, as the audited accounts and financial details reflected the nature of the assessee's business. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in TAO Publishing (P.) Ltd., Sound Casting (P) Ltd., and First Source Solutions Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the jurisdictional condition for reopening the assessment beyond four years was not fulfilled. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 and the resultant assessment order were set aside and quashed. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) finding reasonable cause. As the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits, the Tribunal set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order and restored all issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the limitation period and that the reasons provided for the delay were not satisfactory. The assessee failed to explain why they waited almost two years to file the appeal after the assessment order was passed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance throughout the appellate proceedings. However, to adhere to principles of natural justice and for proper dispensation of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for both assessment years were barred by limitation. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan transactions. The Assessing Officer failed to bring any contrary evidence on record to justify the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the profit was fictitious or that the CCM was done in a malafide manner. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange loss is allowable as a revenue expenditure based on the principle of consistency, as similar gains were offered to tax in earlier years. The interest on delayed tax payments was also held to be allowable as it is compensatory in nature and not a penalty.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous co-ordinate bench decisions, which restricted the commission rate to 0.15%. For AY 2012-13, the addition made by the AO was deleted, allowing the appeal. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was partly allowed, remitting a portion of the turnover to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's brother paid the entire purchase consideration, had actual possession, and 100% rights over the property, the assessee was not a beneficial owner. Therefore, the sale consideration could not be added to the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable, allowing the stamp duty value as of the agreement date. The addition made by the AO, based on the registration date valuation, was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the gains from the sale of Grasim Industries and Ambuja Cement shares should be treated as long-term capital gains, as supported by the assessee's purchase and sale details and CBDT circulars. The addition of Rs. 16,56,000/- on account of alleged profit on sale of Reliance Petro Chemicals Ltd. shares was also deleted as it was taxed in AY 1992-93.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee claimed records were destroyed due to a fire and sought to admit additional evidence from the preceding assessment year. The Tribunal decided to consider the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing a Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not disentitled from availing exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the Supreme Court's observations in similar cases, which clarified that charging amounts on a cost basis or with a nominal markup for activities related to the object of general public utility does not constitute 'trade, commerce, or business'. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's receipts were on account of cost reimbursement and that its accounts demonstrated cost recovery without any excessive markup, a fact not disputed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessee's object of general public utility does not fall within the vice of the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal further observed that the introduction of the proviso does not ipso facto negate an assessee's charitable purpose or disqualify it from exemption; rather, its applicability must be examined factually. Since the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record cogent material to demonstrate that the assessee was involved in trade, commerce, or business, or was charging fees markedly excessive of cost, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities in cases of non-deliberate delay. The appeal was admitted for hearing on merits, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Grounds 3, 5, 6, and 7 were dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. For Ground No. 1 (addition on sale of shares), the Tribunal followed co-ordinate bench decisions in similar cases (AY 1992-93, Hitesh S. Mehta, Pratima H. Mehta) which held that additions cannot be made without providing the material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the entire claim of interest expenditure (Ground No. 4), respectfully following the Supreme Court decision in Seth R. Dalmia vs. CIT and Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Smt. Sushila Devi Khadaria, which allow deduction of interest expenditure under Section 57 of the Act if it has a nexus with income from other sources, even if not direct. The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 4 in favour of the assessee and directed the AO to allow the entire claim of interest. The judgment does not explicitly mention a decision on Ground No. 2 (dividend and interest income addition) or the specific amounts related to it, other than the allowance of interest expenditure which impacts this ground.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous co-ordinate bench decisions, which restricted the commission rate to 0.15%. For AY 2012-13, the addition made by the AO was deleted, allowing the appeal. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was partly allowed, remitting a portion of the turnover to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the profit was fictitious or that the CCM was done in a malafide manner. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's contention that the error was inadvertent and that they were not given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the application to its original number, directing the CIT(E) to grant an opportunity to the Assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), supported by medical reports showing hospitalization in March 2018. Consequently, the delay was condoned. The Tribunal further observed that since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay, he failed to adjudicate the issues raised in the grounds of appeal and did not examine the materials on record. Such dismissal without deciding on merits is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal clarified that this setting aside should not be construed as affecting the merits of the case, which the CIT(A) is empowered to decide independently. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee's contention of an unintentional mistake was merited. Since the Assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the defect, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the application.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's argument that the money belonged to clients and was used for legitimate purposes. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee. Considering the principles of substantial justice and providing a fair opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.