Loading ITAT cases…
715 orders · Page 8 of 15
The Tribunal held that issuing a Section 148 notice before obtaining the mandatory approval under Section 151 renders the notice void ab initio. This defect goes to the root of the jurisdiction and cannot be cured.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a plausible explanation supported by documentary evidence, including an affidavit from legal heirs and bank statements of the deceased. The Revenue failed to provide cogent material to disprove the source of funds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment to allow the assessee to substantiate the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was unsustainable as the assessee had sought adjournments and subsequently complied. The penalty under Section 270A was also deleted, finding the assessee's explanation for the computational error to be bona fide and covered by exceptions in Section 270A(6).
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was unsustainable as the assessee had sought adjournments and subsequently complied. The penalty under Section 270A was also deleted, finding the assessee's explanation for the computational error to be bona fide and covered by exceptions in Section 270A(6).
The Tribunal held that the amendment making dividend from mutual funds taxable was applicable from Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards, not for Assessment Year 2020-21. Therefore, the addition/disallowance made by the CPC and upheld by the Commissioner was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. This was based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case, stating that notices issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 should be dropped.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and present their case. The dismissal was based on the principle that a tribunal cannot prolong proceedings when the moving party is absent.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided further details and evidence before it, which required verification by the AO. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination of the source of funds.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance for salary and wages, allowing 50% of rent and advertisement expenses, and directing the AO to recompute the taxable income based on these modifications.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 41(1) was to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to prove the genuineness of the creditors. Similarly, the addition under Section 68 for short-term loans and advances was also restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the issue of availability and utilization of own funds for advances required factual verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the assessee to submit supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval for reopening beyond three years was obtained from the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) as required by Section 151(ii). This decision was based on High Court judgments affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were based solely on uncorroborated third-party material and in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were based solely on uncorroborated third-party material and in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A cannot be levied when the AO accepts the returned income without any additions, and the AO failed to specify the exact limb of under-reporting or misreporting under which the penalty was levied. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the issue of availability and utilization of own funds for advances required factual verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the assessee to submit supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted by the incorrect authority (Pr. CIT instead of Pr. CCIT) as per the new regime provisions and Supreme Court ruling. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) has no jurisdiction to impose independent conditions while granting registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G, beyond what is stipulated in the Act. Such conditions, especially those contingent on future litigation, are beyond the scope of the law and adversely affect the assessee's functioning.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 5,88,370, holding that sundry debtors recorded in the books of account do not fall under the purview of Section 69A. The issue of brought forward losses was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that the CIT(A) would defer adjudication pending the Supreme Court's decision on the Section 263 validity. The assessee claims to possess all necessary evidence for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the original quantum assessment order, which formed the basis of the penalty, was set aside by a Coordinate Bench, the penalty could not independently survive. The penalty proceedings are consequential to the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(vii) was not sustainable. The difference in valuation, even if wrongly taken by the AO, was within the permissible safe harbor limits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the limitation period as the assessee never received the intimation under section 143(1) and only became aware of the demand upon receiving a screenshot from the AO. The issue of short credit for TDS was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying the amended Rule 11UA retrospectively and in valuing the underlying company shares instead of the holding company shares. The valuation should have been based on the book value of assets as per the unamended Rule 11UA.
The Tribunal held that a liberal approach should be taken for condoning delays to ensure substantial justice prevails over procedural defects. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the ex parte order by the CIT(A) was not justified as there was no deliberate non-cooperation by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the combined assessment order passed by the AO was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in an identical case, holding that the compensation received for surrendering a flat for redevelopment is a capital receipt and not taxable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and affirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact limb of Section 270A(9) under which the assessee was considered to have misreported income. This defect was considered fundamental, striking at the assumption of jurisdiction for levying penalty under the enhanced category of misreporting.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had obtained the necessary registration from the High Court. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals based on the subsequent registration granted by the Bombay High Court. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence of share sales, including sale notes, bank statements, and purchaser details. The AO failed to conduct independent verification or provide an opportunity for cross-examination, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the demand raised under section 200A was unsustainable and directed its deletion. The primary reason was that the sole basis for the demand, the alleged inoperative PAN of the seller, was rendered invalid by subsequent events. The seller had linked his Aadhaar with his PAN, and this regularization was completed within the timeline stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 9/2025. This circular specifically clarifies that the higher TDS rate under section 206AA shall not apply if the PAN is made operative by Aadhaar linkage on or before 30.09.2025 for transactions undertaken between 01.04.2024 and 31.07.2025. Since the transaction fell within this period and the PAN was subsequently regularized, the foundation for invoking section 206AA ceased to exist. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the seller had filed his return of income and paid taxes on the capital gains, meaning the assessee could not be treated as an assessee-in-default under the proviso to section 201(1). The Tribunal also considered the identical facts in the case of the assessee's husband, where a similar demand was deleted by the CIT(A), reinforcing the decision. The CIT(A) was found to have erred in sustaining the demand despite the evidence presented.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including confirmations, PAN details, IT returns, financial statements, and bank trails. The AO's ad-hoc addition based on perceived discrepancies and the "doctrine of human probabilities" was found to be without merit.
The Tribunal upheld the revision order passed by the CIT under Section 263, stating that Section 50C is applicable to the transaction. The assessee was given liberty to raise objections regarding the valuation under Section 50C, and the Assessing Officer was directed to consider these objections.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be proactive and compliant with future notices.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated third-party statements and excel sheet data, without any independent evidence linking the assessee, are unsustainable. The principles of natural justice were violated as the material was not confronted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated third-party statements and excel sheet data, without any independent evidence linking the assessee, are unsustainable. The principles of natural justice were violated as the material was not confronted to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Chamber of Tax Consultants, held that rejection of registration solely on the absence of explicit irrevocability and dissolution clauses is erroneous. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost payment. It held that since the quantum addition forming the basis of the penalty was deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty itself could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 54F based on their contribution to the purchase consideration, even if the property was jointly owned. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction under Section 24(b) based on the assessee's share of liability in the housing loan.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a regular trader and the share transactions, though involving a script later identified as a penny stock, were genuine and conducted within a short period. Therefore, the additions made under Sections 69 and 69C were not sustainable.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the penalty after considering the assessee's submissions and affidavit.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the issue of accrued interest was not examined in the original assessment, thus not a 'change of opinion'. The addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- was upheld as the assessee failed to provide evidence to disregard the accrual of income in AY 2007-08.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying the amended Rule 11UA retrospectively and in valuing the underlying company shares instead of the holding company shares. The valuation should have been based on the book value of assets as per the unamended Rule 11UA.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence and that the loans were repaid promptly. The Tribunal also concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the Section 14A disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on technical grounds of delay. A liberal approach is required for condonation to advance substantial justice, especially when no mala fide intention is attributable to the assessee.