Loading ITAT cases…
1,109 orders · Page 10 of 23
The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under section 148 was obtained from an incorrect authority as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. This vitiated the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to contest the case on merits. The CIT(A) was given liberty to call for a remand report from the AO if the assessee filed supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when the quantum addition is purely based on an estimated profit element and not on a definite finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was set aside as it was levied on an estimated addition.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when the quantum addition is purely based on an estimated profit element, and there is no definitive finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when the quantum addition is purely based on an estimated profit element and not on a definite finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was set aside as it was levied on an estimated addition.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on the same material considered previously and the Revenue failed to establish failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation and the lack of opposition from the revenue. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking in natural justice.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271C is not automatic and requires examination of the assessee's conduct. Since the tax and interest were paid promptly and there was no deliberate default, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer without the requisite jurisdiction, making it void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to this notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer without the requisite jurisdiction, making it void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to this notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal found that the delay was due to communication issues with an old email address and that the CIT(A) had not considered the full explanation. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the delay condonation application.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer without the requisite jurisdiction, making it void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to this notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the disputed purchases. The decision followed a precedent set in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was void ab initio due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 151(ii) regarding the approval of the competent authority. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable on legal grounds because the show-cause notice issued by the AO was ambiguous, failing to specify the exact limb of the section under which penalty proceedings were initiated. The notice referred to both 'concealment of particulars of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' without striking off the inapplicable portion.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions by providing supporting documents like invoices, bank payments, and quantitative details of purchases and sales. Mere reliance on third-party statements without corroboration is insufficient to treat purchases as bogus.
The Tribunal held that the premise of earning exempt long-term capital gains was factually incorrect, as the gains were short-term and resulted in a net loss. Therefore, the additional disallowance under Section 14A was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the advances did not qualify for exclusion under Section 2(22)(e)(ii) as lending money was not a substantial part of JAS's business. The continuous movement of funds in the current account also did not support the assessee's claim of land acquisition advances.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares and adjustment against loan liability were an engineered transaction without real income or real reduction in liability. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, considering the genuineness of the transaction and subsequent events.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration was reasonably explained by the dilapidated condition of the property, seller's affidavit, and payment through banking channels. The AO's failure to refer the valuation to the DVO also weighed in the decision.
The Tribunal held that an ad hoc disallowance without a cogent basis is not sustainable. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to examine the assessee's working for disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the timing of withdrawal of a claim alone cannot constitute 'misreporting' under Section 270A(9) without independent evidence. It also found that the omission of bond interest was a small amount and not necessarily misreporting. The assessee was granted protection under Section 270A(6)(a).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for the current year is an alternative claim intrinsically linked to the outcome of the appeal for the earlier year. Adjudicating it in isolation could lead to double deduction or denial of legitimate claim.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, allowing the assessee a final opportunity to furnish all supporting documents in the prescribed format. This was done to ensure adjudication on complete material, as the additions were sustained due to procedural non-compliance rather than merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions by providing supporting documents like invoices, bank payments, and quantitative details of purchases and sales. Mere reliance on third-party statements without corroboration is insufficient to treat purchases as bogus.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment. The assessee was granted liberty to raise all factual and legal objections and file details regarding the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order which deleted a significant portion of the addition, restricting it to a nominal amount. The Tribunal found no manipulation by the assessee and that the shares were held for over a year.
The Tribunal found factual discrepancies requiring verification by the Assessing Officer regarding transactions with specific parties and the quantum of purchases. It also held that a protective addition could not be sustained once substantive additions were confirmed in the hands of other entities.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear and present their case despite opportunities. The Tribunal also noted the inordinate delay in filing appeals before both the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was void-ab-initio due to the lack of valid sanction from the competent authority. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to this notice was also unsustainable.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and partly allowed the revenue's appeal. Certain additional grounds raised by the assessee were allowed in its favour, while other grounds were decided in line with previous rulings or set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, finding the explanation regarding the accountant's abrupt departure to be a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the penalty.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and partly allowed the revenue's appeal. Certain additional grounds raised by the assessee were allowed in its favour, while other grounds were decided in line with previous rulings or set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and partly allowed the revenue's appeal. Certain additional grounds raised by the assessee were allowed in its favour, while other grounds were decided in line with previous rulings or set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by producing documents to substantiate the transaction, and the revenue failed to provide contrary evidence. The transaction was considered genuine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's transactions for purchase and sale of shares were conducted through banking channels on the legitimate BSE platform with STT paid, and shares were routed through a demat account. The statement of an alleged entry provider was deemed inconsequential as he was not associated with the company.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done because the assessee failed to appear or file submissions despite opportunities, and the Tribunal decided to grant a fresh opportunity to both parties.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear on the final date of hearing and did not file any written submissions. Liberty was granted to seek recalling of the order by substantiating the reasons for non-appearance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the seized loose papers and diaries, without corroborative evidence or statements, lacked evidentiary value, especially after retraction of statements. Reliance was placed on previous ITAT decisions with identical facts.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were conducted through a recognized stock exchange and banking channels, and there was no material to prove the assessee was involved in an accommodation entry scheme. The addition was made without considering the cost of acquisition and the resulting loss.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and partly allowed the revenue's appeal. Certain additional grounds raised by the assessee were allowed in its favour, while other grounds were decided in line with previous rulings or set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that statutory industrial development corporations like MIDC are considered charitable institutions advancing general public utility. Their receipts from statutory functions are not commercial and therefore not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). The Principal CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay and non-representation plausible and supported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence of share transactions through recognized exchanges and banking channels. The addition was unsustainable as it relied on third-party statements without cross-examination and lacked cogent material.
The Tribunal held that while the supplier was an accommodation entry provider, the assessee had provided supporting documents like invoices, stock records, and bank statements, and sales were accepted. Therefore, disallowing the entire purchases was not appropriate.
The tribunal, following its own precedent and High Court judgments, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition for bogus purchases to the extent of the gross profit rate on such purchases, matching the rate of genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a reasonable and effective opportunity to present its case, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the AO found no defect in the documents provided by the assessee and that coordinate benches of ITAT had deleted similar additions in cases involving the same scrip. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine as they were conducted through banking channels on the BSE platform with STT paid, and shares were delivered via demat account. The Tribunal noted that share market performance is based on future potential, not just financials.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay. The explanation was general, lacked particulars, and did not satisfactorily account for the entire period of delay, despite the need for diligence and contemporaneous evidence.