Loading ITAT cases…
734 orders · Page 15 of 15
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to submit all required documents before the AO and CIT(A), documents were submitted before the Tribunal. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee company, being a lessee, is not eligible to claim the benefit of depreciation on the lease-hold assets. The Tribunal noted that the AO had correctly disallowed the depreciation. The reasoning was based on the interpretation of various clauses in the lease agreement and the principle that the claim of depreciation is dependent on the test of ownership. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 2/2001 and decisions of coordinate benches, including a case involving the same assessee for a different assessment year, which emphasized that ownership is determined by the contract terms and that generally, the lessor is entitled to depreciation. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation made by the AO. Regarding the cross-objections, the Tribunal dismissed the first cross-objection concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings, finding no merit in the assessee's contentions. For the second cross-objection, which sought deduction of lease rentals as revenue expenditure if depreciation was disallowed, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's alternative claim. Since this issue was not examined by the AO or CIT(A), the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for examination.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they could not appear due to reasons beyond their control. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was not based on valid evidence. The alleged on-money payment was recorded as 'Discount Receivable' and not 'Cash Received', and the advance money was refunded due to cancellation. The AO's action was based on surmises without independent inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a user of the CRS platform and did not own, operate, or manage it. Therefore, the assessee could not be considered an e-commerce operator under Section 194-O.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of five days in filing the appeal and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a user of the CRS platform and did not own, operate, or manage it. Therefore, the assessee could not be considered an e-commerce operator under Section 194-O.
The Tribunal found a factual discrepancy regarding the loan amount used for the property purchase and the CIT(A) had not considered the request for referring the valuation to the DVO for the addition under Section 56(2)(x). Consequently, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a user of the CRS platform and did not own, operate, or manage it. Therefore, the assessee could not be considered an e-commerce operator under Section 194-O.
The Tribunal found a factual discrepancy regarding the loan amount used for the property purchase and the CIT(A) had not considered the request for referring the valuation to the DVO for the addition under Section 56(2)(x). Consequently, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT registry had registered the same appeal twice, leading to two separate orders for the same assessment year. The Tribunal decided to recall the order passed in ITA No. 4846/Mum/2023 and dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that adjustments made in a Section 143(1) intimation merge with the subsequent Section 143(3) assessment order, allowing them to be challenged in appeal against the latter. For one assessment year, the deletion of Section 43B additions was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) is not tenable if own funds exceed investments in tax-free securities, following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. However, the disallowance for administrative expenses under Rule 8D(iii) was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 1802 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The assessee's application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit detailing financial hardship, health issues, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, was found to make out a sufficient cause. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji&Ors., emphasizing a liberal approach to condoning delays to ensure substantial justice. The Tribunal also held that the PCIT's order under section 263 is not sustainable in law. It noted that the PCIT passed the order ex-parte, stating that the notice was served by affixation as the premises were found closed. However, no proof of affixation was placed on record. The Tribunal found that the mandatory requirement of providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing an order under section 263 was not met. Therefore, the impugned order of the PCIT was set aside. The case was restored to the file of the PCIT to be disposed of on merits after duly considering the material on record and providing the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to present its case before the PCIT within 90 days of the order.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to decide the issue on merits and that the assessee was non-compliant. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the reason for non-compliance with the statutory notices due to her absence in a remote village without internet facility. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for the failure, and the penalty levied under section 272A(1)(d) was not justified.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to represent their case effectively, considering there was a reasonable cause for the ex-parte decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had allowed relief based on a remand report that was procedurally flawed as it was not properly vetted by the Range Head. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT remitted the issue back to the file of the Ld. AO, directing the AO to refer the matter to the DVO as requested by the appellant's AR, before making any addition under Section 56(2)(x). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, taking a lenient view, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the appellant with one more effective opportunity to present their case and submit all necessary details, considering the peculiar circumstances.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Relying on various decisions of the ITAT and the Supreme Court, particularly the case of Mavilayi Services Cooperative Bank Ltd., the Tribunal held that the appellant society is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) on interest earned from a cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposit in the bank account, even after opportunities during assessment and remand proceedings. The additions made by the AO were confirmed.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to decide the issue on merits and that the assessee was non-compliant. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Ld. DR did not object to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal, dismissing it as withdrawn. It was clarified that if the VSVS application is not acted upon due to any legal or technical issue, both parties are at liberty to revive the issue.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the counsel's concession and in the interest of justice, restored both appeals to the CIT (Exemptions) for a fresh decision. The CIT (Exemptions) is directed to afford the assessee a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the investment in CCDs was a strategic move to acquire controlling interest in a subsidiary, which is considered a business purpose. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenses was not justified.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. As the scheme application was processed, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that adjustments made in a Section 143(1) intimation merge with the subsequent Section 143(3) assessment order, allowing them to be challenged in appeal against the latter. For one assessment year, the deletion of Section 43B additions was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that adjustments made in a Section 143(1) intimation merge with the subsequent Section 143(3) assessment order, allowing them to be challenged in appeal against the latter. For one assessment year, the deletion of Section 43B additions was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without specifying the unfulfilled conditions and denied the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case, especially considering the provisional registration granted.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the counsel's concession and in the interest of justice, restored both appeals to the CIT (Exemptions) for a fresh decision. The CIT (Exemptions) is directed to afford the assessee a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard in accordance with the law.
The tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) is not tenable if own funds exceed investments in tax-free securities, following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. However, the disallowance for administrative expenses under Rule 8D(iii) was confirmed.
The Tribunal noted that the revenue authorities overlooked documents submitted by the assessee and made additions based on preconceived notions and investigation reports without proper verification. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) based on various coordinate bench decisions and the Supreme Court decision in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.