Loading ITAT cases…
591 orders · Page 9 of 12
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of making an addition under Section 68 was not justified. The assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing complete details of the transaction, including sale invoices and bank statements, which were not disputed by the AO except for the observation that banking channels are not sacrosanct. The AO failed to bring any adverse material against the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable. The assessee provided credible evidence, including the sale deed and bank statements, showing the cash deposit originated from the sale proceeds of the property. The revenue failed to challenge the authenticity of these documents.
The Tribunal held that the precondition for invoking Section 14A is the earning of exempt income. Since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant assessment year, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not conduct independent investigations and relied solely on third-party information. The assessee had discharged her primary onus by providing documentary evidence of genuine share transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought one more opportunity and undertook to attend proceedings without undue adjournment. The Ld. DR did not raise specific objections. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by liberally construing the expression "sufficient cause", applying the principle that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The matter has been restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the subscription revenues from CAS and PUBS divisions cannot be taxed as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act or Article 12(3) of the India-US DTAA. This decision was based on the principle of consistency with previous years' orders.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and noted that the Departmental Representative did not object. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate claims, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on depreciation and disallowance of payments to resident contractors, directing deletion of the disallowances. The issue of disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification. Other grounds were also directed to be considered afresh by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the principle of 'substantial justice' over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- in the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the return filed by the assessee declaring NIL income, which should have been taken into account. Considering the interest of natural justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice u/s 148 was issued within the extended time limit provided by TOLA. However, acknowledging that the assessee could not effectively contest before the CIT(A) on all grounds, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision with adequate opportunity.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte without examining the issues on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the ITAT restored the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues afresh after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the 344-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging 'sufficient cause' due to circumstances like erroneous email IDs, changed registered office, and a director's SFIO involvement. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to present its case, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the principle of advancing substantial justice over technicalities. The appeals were admitted for hearing on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the 344-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging 'sufficient cause' due to circumstances like erroneous email IDs, changed registered office, and a director's SFIO involvement. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to present its case, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have submitted details to the CIT(A) which were not considered, leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a factual examination of the submitted details.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have submitted details to the CIT(A) which were not considered, leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a factual examination of the submitted details.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was specific and justifiable, citing the appointment of an Administrative Board, changes in key personnel, and significant repair work. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not stand to gain from this non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not forthcoming and did not cooperate with the appellate proceedings. Since no material was submitted to substantiate the grounds of appeal, and the assessee did not pursue the appeal, it was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the additions in the quantum assessment were ultimately deleted by the ITAT, the penalty order passed under Section 221(1) would not survive. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) which had directed the recalculation of the demand.
The Tribunal held that while the initial appeal was dismissed in limine by the Ld. Commissioner for want of limitation, the delay could be condoned considering the Covid-19 period as per the Hon'ble Apex Court's suo-moto cognizance. The Assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 22,000/- and file relevant documents, after which the appeal would be decided on merit.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed ex-parte without proper opportunity of being heard and without ensuring that the assessee received the assessment order. The failure to supply the assessment order incapacitated the assessee from challenging it, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction solely on the ground of non-furnishing of a registered purchase deed. The CIT(A) had noted that section 54F does not reference ownership or registration as a mandatory condition. The Tribunal found merit in this view, citing High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to Section 54 exemption based on the allotment letter and subsequent registration, and that rental income should be taxed based on the established ownership share of 25%.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order dated 27.10.2023 was patently barred by limitation under section 275(1)(a) and was therefore null and void. The Tribunal reasoned that the department, by filing Form No. 36 before the Tribunal, had unequivocally declared that the CIT(A)'s order dated 01.09.2006 was received on 22.11.2006. This disclosure from the department's own pleadings carried conclusive evidentiary value for computing the limitation period. According to section 275(1)(a), the penalty order must be passed on or before the later of: (i) the end of the financial year in which the assessment was completed, or (ii) one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the CIT(A) is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Since the CIT(A)'s order was received on 22.11.2006, the limitation expired on 31.03.2008. The explanation that internal records did not indicate the date of receipt of the CIT(A)'s order could not extend the statutory limitation. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had overlooked the decisive evidentiary value of Form No. 36. The jurisdiction to levy penalty extinguished on 31.03.2008, rendering the penalty order passed in October 2023 void ab initio. The remaining grounds on the merits of the penalty levy were not adjudicated as the penalty order itself was held to be non-est. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee remained uncooperative and ex-parte in all proceedings. Since no new facts or evidence were presented to controvert the findings of the CIT(A), the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower appellate authority's decision.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice u/s 148 was issued within the extended time limit provided by TOLA. However, acknowledging that the assessee could not effectively contest before the CIT(A) on all grounds, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision with adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice u/s 148 was issued within the extended time limit provided by TOLA. However, acknowledging that the assessee could not effectively contest before the CIT(A) on all grounds, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision with adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal, taking a lenient view due to the assessee's stated health issues and inability to represent the case earlier, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This opportunity is subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and cooperating in the proceedings, with the AO to adjudicate independently on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought one more opportunity and undertook to attend proceedings without undue adjournment. The Ld. DR did not raise specific objections. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on depreciation and disallowance of payments to resident contractors, directing deletion of the disallowances. The issue of disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification. Other grounds were also directed to be considered afresh by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹2.50 crore was not justified as the promissory note lacked corroborative evidence, the assessee's signature, and was not found in her possession. The AO failed to bring on record any direct or corroborative evidence to support the alleged loan transaction.
The Tribunal held that the reopening notices were barred by limitation, as per the Supreme Court decision in Rajeev Bansal. The notice issued was invalid, consequently invalidating the subsequent proceedings. The appeal was allowed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that for immovable property transactions, the date of the registered deed is crucial for determining transfer. An allotment letter does not confer legal title. Therefore, the stamp duty value on the date of the registered agreement (15.04.2017) is relevant for calculating the addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost of Rs. 5,500/-. The tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner and remanded the case back for a decision on merit, allowing the assessee to raise additional legal grounds.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee ultimately responded, and the initial non-compliance was due to the chartered accountant's negligence. Since the subsequent compliances were considered sufficient and a reasonable cause was demonstrated, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was held not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence and respond to notices, the CIT(A) did not objectively evaluate the case and dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that, due to the statutory moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, it is legally restrained from entertaining or proceeding with the appeals against the corporate debtor. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed in limine, with liberty for the Revenue to seek restoration once the moratorium ceases or appropriate permissions are obtained.
The Tribunal held that since the provisions of Section 115JB were not applicable to the assessee bank, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) on the disallowance made under that section was unsustainable and deserved to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principles of substantial justice over technicalities, as the assessee was unaware of the proceedings and was ex-parte before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements without corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination are unsustainable. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that, due to the statutory moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, it is legally restrained from entertaining or proceeding with the appeals against the corporate debtor. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed in limine, with liberty for the Revenue to seek restoration once the moratorium ceases or appropriate permissions are obtained.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements without corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination are unsustainable. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements without corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination are unsustainable. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the AO for deciding the appeals afresh after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the AO for deciding the appeals afresh after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.