Loading ITAT cases…
715 orders · Page 5 of 15
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed after the expiry of the one-month period from the end of the month in which the DRP directions were received. Therefore, the order is barred by limitation and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the sanction for reopening beyond three years must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, as mandated by Section 151(ii). Approval from an inferior authority renders the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not applicable to TDS periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not maintainable.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to furnish required statutory certificates and supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's admission under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is significant, the AO did not independently verify the documentary evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for independent verification of the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not applicable to TDS periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not sustainable for those periods.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have verified records and ensured a proper opportunity for the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex parte. The substantive issue of bogus purchases also required adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the mere existence of an object clause allowing application of funds outside India does not constitute a 'specified violation' unless income is actually applied outside India in contravention of Section 11. The CIT(E) should not deny registration based on hypothetical apprehensions.
The Tribunal found that the notice was sent to an incorrect email address, and thus, the assessee was not properly served. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 was not justified as the audit report was uploaded on the departmental portal before the due date. Procedural defects should not defeat substantive claims of exemption, especially considering CBDT Circular No. 2/2020.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had granted relief without allowing the AO an opportunity to contest the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow the AO to verify the disclosure of bank accounts and the reason for the NIL closing balance in the preceding year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence of the creditors' identity, genuineness of transactions, and creditworthiness. The Assessing Officer's objections were based on probing successive layers of source beyond statutory requirements.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 28.07.2022 was barred by limitation as it was beyond the surviving limitation period available under the Income Tax Act read with the TOLA, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal.
The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the present appeal. Considering this request, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the mistake was evident on the face of the record and fell within the domain of rectification. The assessee's contention that 'profit after tax' should be considered was accepted.
The Tribunal held that once the quantum additions are deleted, no penalty can survive. The Department's appeal against the deletion of the penalty was dismissed as the basis for the penalty no longer existed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear and represent its case despite opportunities. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recalling of the order by substantiating reasons for non-compliance.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise additional grounds as they were legal and went to the root of the case. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the documents filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the matter to the CIT(Exemptions). The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to consider the previously issued registration certificates and grant registration/renewal under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the matter to the CIT(Exemptions). The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to consider the previously issued registration certificates and grant registration/renewal under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Apitco Limited and BVG India Limited as comparables, citing reasons like government ownership and functional dissimilarity. It confirmed the inclusion of Cyber Media Research Ltd. as a comparable, aligning with previous tribunal rulings.
The Tribunal held that once the quantum additions on which the penalty was based were deleted by a coordinate bench, no penalty can survive. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once the quantum additions on which the penalty was based were deleted by a coordinate bench, no penalty can survive. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once the quantum assessment, which formed the basis for the penalty, was set aside, the penalty order could not survive independently. The penalty is consequential to the assessment, and its foundation ceases to exist when the assessment is restored for fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) was obligated to consider the documents filed by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication after considering the submitted documents and providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, following its own previous orders for the same assessee and similar facts in earlier assessment years, held that the lease and service income should be treated as 'Business Income'. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to claim deductions for expenses and depreciation, and set-off of brought forward losses.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand report findings while passing the impugned order. The order suffered from a lack of proper appreciation of the material on record, including the AO's remand findings.
The Tribunal noted that the registration under Section 12AB had already been granted. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee became infructuous.
The Tribunal found that crucial aspects regarding the source and application of funds, including subsequent transfers, were not adequately examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for limited verification.
The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing substantial justice and precedents. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on cited decisions.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of absence of explicit irrevocability and dissolution clauses is contrary to the law laid down by the Bombay High Court. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element in unaccounted receipts is taxable, not the gross receipts. Relying on seized documents and statements, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 22%.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party statements and uncorroborated excel sheet data, without any independent evidence linking the assessee, are unsustainable. The principles of natural justice were violated as the adverse material was not confronted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) was obligated to consider the documents filed by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication after considering the documents and providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing substantial justice and precedents. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on cited decisions.
The Tribunal noted that the majority of purchases were accepted as genuine and export sales were not doubted. It restricted the addition to the differential profit margin, directing the assessee to provide computation of gross profit margin for similar goods.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision. This was done to uphold the principles of natural justice, as the assessee claimed non-receipt of the notice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application based on the absence of an express irrevocability clause, especially when the trust is governed by the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. It also found that the disputed object clauses were enabling and did not necessarily imply application of funds outside India.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was granted by an incorrect authority, as it was obtained from the PCIT instead of the CCIT/PCCIT for reopening beyond three years. This defect goes to the root of the matter, rendering the reassessment proceedings void.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee's disability constituted a sufficient cause for non-compliance.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of substantial justice, but with a cost imposed on the assessee for its non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the 'borrowed services' did not constitute FTS as they did not make available any technical knowledge or skill. Reimbursement of expenses was also not taxable as it lacked any profit element.
The Tribunal held that the absence of irrevocable and dissolution clauses is a mandatory requirement and not a procedural lapse. The assessee's inconsistent statements constituted a misrepresentation of facts, leading to the rejection of the application.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was time-barred as it was issued beyond the period prescribed by Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the variation between the purchase consideration and stamp duty valuation was approximately 6.45%, which falls within the permissible tolerance limit of 10%. Therefore, no addition under Section 56(2)(x) was legally sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses was an ascertained liability under the mercantile system of accounting, as substantial work had been completed and only the final bills were awaited. The provision was also reversed in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given any finding on the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of section 115BAA solely on the ground of non-filing of Form 10-IC within the prescribed time, especially when the non-filing was due to technical reasons beyond the assessee's control. Consequently, section 115JB is not applicable, and brought forward losses should be considered.
The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing substantial justice and precedents. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on cited decisions.