Loading ITAT cases…
734 orders · Page 5 of 15
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had since obtained the necessary approval and had started incurring expenses on its charitable objects. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT to reconsider the application.
The Tribunal held that the non-submission of Form 26A electronically to the DGIT(Systems) was a procedural lapse and not a reason to deny the substantial benefit of claiming the interest expense as a deduction. The payee had included the interest as income and paid taxes on it.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. It was held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits and therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had since obtained the necessary approval and had started incurring expenses on its charitable objects. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT to reconsider the application.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalties as the additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, were deleted or reduced by the Tribunal itself. Therefore, the penalties were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the shares acquired by the assessee cannot be treated as an intangible asset for depreciation purposes. The purchase of shares was for investment, and the mining rights were with MSGM. The facts of the case are distinguishable from the precedent relied upon by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's option to resolve the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024 and noted that the assessee has paid the required demand. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of business promotion expenses of Rs. 1,25,852/- was not justified as the transactions were verifiable, even if not all bills were produced during the initial assessment. Similarly, the disallowance of cash discounts was also deleted as the AO's enquiry was selective and most transactions were found verifiable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer (AO) relied on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind and failed to dispose of the assessee's objections. The notice for reopening and the subsequent reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the intimation under Section 143(1) was likely never communicated to the assessee, and there was no intentional or deliberate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal condoned the delay. Since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate on the merits of the appeal, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Given that the assessee has opted for the Vivad se Visvas scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the Assessee claimed to have filed a response, but the Commissioner failed to decide the issue properly in the absence of relevant documents. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted a misunderstanding of the provisions by the assessee and the AO. It observed that the assessee claimed to have received the provisional registration but failed to produce it. For substantial justice, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was unaware of the ex-parte order and intended to pursue the appeal. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the AO completed the assessment pending the DVO's report. The DVO subsequently determined the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property. Considering the peculiar facts and for substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without issuing a specific show cause notice regarding the delay. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had called for a remand report on the merits of the grounds of appeal, despite the delay. The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate, considering that the necessary appeal fees were paid within four days of receiving the assessment order. The Tribunal also acknowledged the difficulties faced by taxpayers with the newly introduced e-filing system in 2016, which was a factor in the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate all grounds of appeal on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to allow a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee was granted liberty to file additional evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the shares acquired by the assessee cannot be treated as an intangible asset for depreciation purposes. The purchase of shares was for investment, and the mining rights were with MSGM. The facts of the case are distinguishable from the precedent relied upon by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee offered to amend the objectionable clause in the trust deed and remove other violations. Considering this undertaking, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the case.
The Tribunal held that on similar facts and identical findings, a Co-ordinate Bench had deleted the addition in the case of the assessee's husband, Shri Rajendra Chaturvedi, and Mrs. Pallavi Pandey. The Tribunal noted that the shares were purchased and sold through a recognized stock exchange via registered brokers, supported by contract notes, and payments were made through banking channels. The AO had relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report without independent verification or proving the money trail. The AO disbelieved the documents without pointing out specific defects, and the CIT(A) upheld the order based on the allegation of the assessee being a beneficiary of a rigged share price racket. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that all necessary information and documentary evidence were furnished, but the AO failed to conduct further verification. Therefore, respectfully following the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO under Section 68 and the addition of alleged commission under Section 69C. The appeal of the assessee was allowed on merits.
The Tribunal held that the shares acquired by the assessee cannot be treated as an intangible asset for depreciation purposes. The purchase of shares was for investment, and the mining rights were with MSGM. The facts of the case are distinguishable from the precedent relied upon by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned by the assessee. The additions made by the AO were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, treating it as a bonafide mistake. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication after finding that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity for hearing and had not been diligent. A cost of Rs. 11,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was bad in law because an effective opportunity of hearing, which is a sine qua non for upholding the principle of natural justice, was not provided to the assessee. While the CIT(A) noted that notices were sent and the assessee repeatedly sought adjournments, ultimately deciding the appeal ex parte based on available material, the Tribunal found that this did not constitute an effective hearing. The Tribunal referred to Section 250(2)(a) of the Act, which grants the appellant the right to be heard. The Tribunal concluded that a miscarriage of justice had occurred and that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to represent its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to provide an effective opportunity of hearing within 60 days. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in these terms.
The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to resolve the controversy regarding the completeness of the submitted documents.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner issued an order on 05.12.2024, the same date as the notice issued to the assessee to file submissions by 13.12.2024. This was considered an inadvertent error.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on unsubstantiated information and suspicion, without cogent evidence. The assessee's claim, supported by corroborative evidence of an agreement with UVI Films Productions Pvt. Ltd. and bank transactions, was found to be credible. The first appellate authority had already deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and the ex-parte order was bad in law. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The exclusion under Section 80P(4) applies to co-operative banks functioning as commercial banks and not to co-operative societies depositing funds in co-operative banks.
The Tribunal held that for the Assessment Year 2017-18 (prior to April 1, 2017), income not covered by specific articles of the DTAA, and not excluded by Article 22(2), was taxable only in the country of residence (Mauritius). The amendment inserting Paragraph 3 in Article 22, which allowed taxation in the source country, was effective from April 1, 2017, and thus not applicable for the period in question.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of TDS deducted by the employer, provided the assessee has offered the income for taxation and paid the due tax. The employer remains liable for non-deposit of TDS.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee opted for resolution under the "Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024" and had remitted the tax. Consequently, the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal was allowed with liberty to reinstate.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee a second opportunity to submit all necessary documents. The CIT(E) is directed to re-decide the application after affording the assessee a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to resolve the controversy regarding the completeness of the submitted documents.
The Tribunal held that the facts on record clearly indicated that the AO did not provide the assessee with an opportunity to raise objections to the reopening of the assessment before proceeding with the assessment proceedings. This was in direct contravention of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. ITO, which mandates that a noticee is entitled to file objections to the issuance of a notice under Section 148, and the AO is bound to dispose of these objections by passing a speaking order. The Tribunal also referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Asian Paints Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, which held that the assessee must be given a reasonable period to take remedial action if objections to reopening are rejected. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to raise objections regarding the reopening, and the AO is directed to dispose of these objections first and then decide the issues afresh. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 80 days, citing the assessee's age and health. On merits, the Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation, as it was issued on 31.07.2022, whereas the last date for issuance was 31.03.2022. Consequently, the assessment order was also quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the genuine and bonafide reasons presented by the assessee due to severe medical ailments. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh adjudication on merits, with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide complete information regarding the crystallization of the liability for the prior period expenses in the year under consideration. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide sufficient opportunity for hearing to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The rejection order was deemed not legally sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since no additions were made to the returned income during the assessment proceedings for either year, the penalties imposed were not sustainable. The discretion to impose penalty under Section 270A was also not exercised judiciously in the given facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the prior period expenses were crystallized in the year under consideration. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was based was already deleted, the penalty could not stand by itself. Consequently, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal held that since no additions were made to the returned income during the assessment proceedings for either year, the penalties imposed were not sustainable. The discretion to impose penalty under Section 270A was also not exercised judiciously in the given facts.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the disallowance for write-off of security receipts, finding no infirmity in the assessee's claim. The issue of upside income was partially allowed by the CIT(A), leading to appeals from both parties.
The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are primarily co-operative societies, and therefore, interest income earned from them is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the prior period expenses were crystallized in the year under consideration. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further adjudication.
The Tribunal granted the assessee permission to withdraw the mistakenly filed duplicate appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions under Section 68 as the increase in unsecured loan was a book entry and not fresh loan. For Section 69 additions, the Tribunal found no evidence of payment for properties that were never constructed due to developer's fraud, but enhanced the addition for stamp duty and registration charges by Rs. 30,000.