Loading ITAT cases…
564 orders · Page 6 of 12
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. It concluded that a restraint order under Section 132(3) did not extend the period of limitation for completing the assessment, and the search was concluded on an earlier date.
The Tribunal held that Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) is applicable. Despite the voluntary disclosure in the return filed u/s 153A, the assessee is deemed to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income, attracting the penalty. The levy of penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance under Section 69C as the assessee had contractual rights that were transferred, and the profit/loss arising was business income/expense. Regarding Section 68, the Tribunal noted that the assessee provided documentary evidence like loan agreements and bank statements, contradicting the AO's claim of no evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition to the extent of the GP rate on purchases from M/s. Wafa International, finding no additional material to prove the genuineness of these purchases. The appeals of both the assessee and the revenue were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous. It relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions and consistent Tribunal rulings stating that co-operative banks are co-operative societies and interest earned from them is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions for discounts, bonus/incentives, and interest to MSMEs, relying on its own previous decisions. However, the issue of TDS default reported in the Tax Audit Report was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 could not be sustained as the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. The loans were borrowed and repaid within the same financial year, with interest duly paid and tax deducted at source.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition to the extent of the GP rate on purchases from M/s. Wafa International, finding no additional material to prove the genuineness of these purchases. The appeals of both the assessee and the revenue were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the issue of allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income was debatable, and the AO had taken a plausible view after examining the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the PCIT's revision was not justified.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the AO, directing a fresh examination of whether the assessee made purchases from Laxmi Enterprises. The assessee was given an opportunity to provide necessary documentation and attend proceedings.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence and deleted additions without obtaining a remand report from the AO and without any specific application moved under Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper verification of the documents and obtaining a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal found that the DVO's valuation needed re-examination due to the nature of restrictions and encumbrances on the property. The Tribunal directed the AO to revisit the valuation with the DVO, considering additional evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the full deduction under Section 54F for the entire long-term capital gain, including the balance amount of ₹ 25,59,270, as the purchase of the flat was made within the stipulated time frame.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted requisite enquiries and that there were divergent plausible views on the eligibility of CSR expenses for Section 80G deduction. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that short-term capital gains arising in March 2021 should be considered for the last installment of advance tax, not earlier ones. The interest under Section 234C should be computed accordingly, providing relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the Coordinate Bench had accepted the availability of cash through withdrawals and a portion of the opening cash balance, the basis for the addition and subsequent penalty was removed. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that payments for alternate accommodation are not liable for TDS under Section 194I, following coordinate bench decisions. However, the disallowance for delayed PF/ESIC contributions was confirmed based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that payments for alternate accommodation are not liable for TDS under Section 194I, following coordinate bench decisions. However, the disallowance for delayed PF/ESIC contributions was confirmed based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that in earlier assessment years (2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12), Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal had consistently restricted the addition of profit on ingenuine purchases to 1%. The Tribunal found parity of facts in the present appeals for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. Therefore, the Tribunal saw no reason to deviate from the established findings of the Coordinate Benches. The reasoning adopted by the Coordinate Bench, which was followed here, was that the profit element to be estimated on ingenuine purchases should exclude the VAT portion, and only the incidental benefit derived from making purchases in the grey market should be brought to tax. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to restrict the addition to 1% of the value of ingenuine purchases. The operative direction is to restrict the addition to 1%.
The Tribunal held that in earlier assessment years, Co-ordinate Benches had consistently taken a view by restricting the element of profit to 1% on ingenuine purchases. The Tribunal found parity of facts in the present appeals and saw no reason to differ from the findings of the Co-ordinate Benches. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 1% of the value of ingenuine purchases. The ratio decidendi is that when a consistent view has been taken by co-ordinate benches on similar facts in earlier years, the same should be followed to maintain consistency in judicial pronouncements. The operative direction is to restrict the addition to 1%, implying a deletion of the excess addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case before the Ld.CIT(A) on both legal and factual grounds. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to allow filing of documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case before the Ld.CIT(A) on both legal and factual grounds. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to allow filing of documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case before the Ld.CIT(A) on both legal and factual grounds. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to allow filing of documents.
The Tribunal held that even if the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A), the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on its merits. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the substance of the case. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh on merits after providing a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal did not decide the specific grounds raised by the assessee regarding the ex-parte order, the demand, the capital gains computation, Article 265, or the Board Circular, as these were to be adjudicated by the CIT(A) upon remand.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the tax audit report due to ERP implementation constituted a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was not warranted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal *in limine* without deciding on its merits, despite notices being served to the assessee. The Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that there was insufficient material on record to definitively determine whether the charter hire charges constituted fee for technical services liable for TDS under Section 194J. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh determination after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI due to a one-day delay, when the due date falls on a Sunday or public holiday, is incorrect. The delay is condoned under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, and the disallowance is deleted.
The ITAT observed that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity of hearing and submission.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on the admissibility of the ground challenging the levy of interest under section 234A. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the admissibility of this ground and, if admissible, to adjudicate the assessee's additional claim.
The Tribunal held that since the cash sales were accounted for and declared in VAT returns, and the AO had not rejected the books of accounts or the declared business profits, the cash generated from these sales could not be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 221 days, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee gets a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CPC, upon considering the rectification request, issued a revised intimation correctly computing the surcharge at 15%. The assessee's counsel also confirmed that the grievance was redressed.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Section 68 as the issue was not unexplained credit but the transfer of accumulated profits post-conversion. It further noted that Section 47(xiiib)(f) pertains to computation of capital gains and not additions under Section 68, and that the alleged violation did not attract the ingredients of Section 68. The Tribunal also pointed out that even if a transfer occurred, it should be in the hands of the partners, not the assessee firm.
The Tribunal held that since the delay occurred before the ld. CIT(A), it was incumbent upon the ld. CIT(A) to consider the affidavit and the cause of delay. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matters back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee was directed to furnish an affidavit before the ld. CIT(A) justifying the cause of delay. The ld. CIT(A) was further directed to decide the issue of condonation of delay afresh. If the ld. CIT(A) is convinced with the reasons for the delay, then the appeals are to be decided on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of AY 2018-19, and the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, making the notice and consequent assessment order void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application based on a strict interpretation of the time limit. It found that the assessee's application was filed within the time permitted under the Act, considering the interpretation of the relevant provision by coordinate benches. The Tribunal also noted a violation of the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 2947 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The Tribunal considered the affidavit of the assessee detailing the circumstances, including the critical illness and death of the director responsible for tax matters, and the subsequent takeover by his son who was unaware of the proceedings. The Tribunal also took into account the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's directions regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay. Regarding the ex parte order, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order itself indicated that no effective opportunity of hearing was provided, as there was no proof of due service of notices on the appellant. The Tribunal observed that an effective hearing is a sine qua non for upholding natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an effective hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(A) within 60 days.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was in clear violation of Section 149 of the Act as it was issued after more than 3 years and the escaped income was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated were bad in law and the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether MEIS subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt is debatable and involves significant interpretational issues. Therefore, it does not fall under the scope of a 'mistake apparent from the record' for rectification under Section 154. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the additional evidence regarding losses and the potential for no tax advantage, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of losses and adjudicate the penalty accordingly.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) failed to consider detailed submissions filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the delay occurred before the learned CIT(A), it was incumbent upon the learned CIT(A) to consider the affidavit and the cause of the delay. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal remitted both matters back to the file of the learned CIT(A). The assessee was directed to furnish an affidavit before the learned CIT(A) justifying the cause of delay. The learned CIT(A) was further directed to decide the issue of condonation of delay afresh and, if convinced, to decide the appeals on their merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was in clear violation of Section 149 of the Act as it was issued after more than 3 years and the escaped income was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated were bad in law and the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements and audited financials of the other party, to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The AO failed to provide any material to rebut these submissions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already filed an application for condonation of delay with the PCIT. Recognizing this, the Tribunal directed the PCIT to expeditiously dispose of the condonation application. Subsequently, the lower authorities were to decide the matter afresh.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had not condoned the delay due to lack of proper reasoning, the assessee should be given another opportunity. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the condonation petition and the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence for purchases, interest payments, and outstanding creditors. The CIT(A)'s relief to the assessee on these grounds was found to be unjustified without proper verification or opportunity to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's additions were restored.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence showing cash in hand in previous years, which was reflected in the books of account. Therefore, the addition made by the AO under Section 69A was not legally justified.
The tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the AO for deciding it afresh on merits, providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties and allowing the assessee to place on record supporting documents. A nominal cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the assessee.