Loading ITAT cases…
1,109 orders · Page 2 of 23
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer, finding that factual verification was necessary and that the violation of natural justice warranted such action. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its prima facie onus by furnishing various documents. However, considering the uncertainty regarding whether any part of the alleged purchases was already offered to tax, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of absence of an irrevocability clause was incorrect, following the Bombay High Court's decision. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to grant registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on procedural non-compliance without examining the merits and that the assessee should be given an effective opportunity to present its case. The rejection of the 80G application was consequential to the 12AB rejection.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO's application of Section 68 to alleged bogus purchases (which are expenditures) was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The matter was remanded for examination under the correct provisions.
The Tribunal held that obtaining prior approval from the specified authority under Section 151 is a jurisdictional pre-condition for assuming jurisdiction under Section 148. Non-compliance renders the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on procedural non-compliance without examining the merits and that the assessee should be given an effective opportunity to present its case. The rejection of the 80G application was consequential to the 12AB rejection.
The Tribunal noted that while submissions were part of the record, they were not filed during appellate proceedings, leading to non-adjudication on merits. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation and provided comparable sales, the AO should have referred the matter to the DVO. The case was restored to the AO to determine the fair market value with a DVO report.
The Tribunal held that rejection of books of accounts solely for non-maintenance of qualitative stock details, without any other defect, is unsustainable. The estimation of profit at an arbitrary rate of 3% was also found to lack rational basis.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction, including the receipt and repayment of the advance through banking channels. The adverse investigation reports and non-compliance by the third party were not sufficient to disallow the transaction.
The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 2% of the purchases, considering that the assessee had discharged its primary onus and the AO relied on third-party information without providing cross-examination. The Tribunal upheld this decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's reliance on his Chartered Accountant and lack of effective representation. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide. It held that the CIT(E) did not properly appreciate the evidence regarding the commencement of activities or the implications of the Memorandum of Association.
The Tribunal held that the bonus payments were made to regular employees of the assessee, and the mode of payment through a sister concern, which was later reimbursed, should not be the sole basis for disallowance. The Tribunal also found that the cash payments did not exceed the threshold for Section 40A(3) invocation.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order is vitiated in law for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure of disposing of objections by a speaking order before completing reassessment. The reassessment proceedings are quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide. It held that the CIT(E) did not properly appreciate the evidence regarding the commencement of activities or the implications of the Memorandum of Association.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored both applications for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT(E) to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required documents and to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored both applications for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT(E) to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required documents and to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal observed that while the assessee's explanation for gifts appeared genuine, it lacked documentary evidence. Similarly, for depreciation, the relevant documents were not produced. Therefore, both issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal. It found no new facts to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings and saw no reason to interfere with the restricted disallowance.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in finalizing the assessment without referring the property's valuation to the DVO, especially when the assessee objected and provided a registered valuer's report. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after obtaining the DVO's valuation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in treating the application for renewal as one for regularization and that the issues required fresh examination. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessee was denied access to complete material and an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to adopt the fair market value of the shares on the exercise date as the cost of acquisition under Section 49(2AA) for computing capital gains. The AO's contrary view was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the crucial issue is the year in which remission or cessation of liability occurred. Since additional evidence regarding write-back in the succeeding year was not available before the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity are void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The defect is a substantive jurisdictional defect and not a curable irregularity.
The Tribunal held that the evidence furnished by the assessee regarding the non-conclusion of the sale transaction required proper verification. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not considered the information submitted by the assessee, leading to a rejection without a decision on merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that immunity under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme does not extend to penalties independent of the quantum dispute. However, due to lack of factual details regarding the computation of turnover from futures and options, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection was based on a factually incorrect premise that no compliance was made. Since a reply was filed, the rejection order was vitiated and the matter needed to be reconsidered.
The Tribunal followed its own precedent for a prior assessment year. It restricted the disallowance on marketing and sales promotion expenses to 20% of the total expenses and upheld the deletion of additions on work-in-progress and royalty payments.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and submissions. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice and uphold natural justice principles, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of limitation was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the application was rejected solely for non-compliance without examining the merits. Given the civil consequences of registration, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an effective opportunity to comply.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to cooperate, the CIT(Exemption) did not fully examine the merits. Therefore, one final opportunity should be granted to the assessee to submit the documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed furnished the required details and documents in response to the notices. The CIT(Exemptions) orders were passed on an incorrect factual premise of non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the evidence furnished by the assessee regarding the non-conclusion of the sale transaction required proper verification. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed furnished the required details and documents in response to the notices. The CIT(E)'s orders were passed on an incorrect factual premise of non-compliance.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not considered the information submitted by the assessee, leading to a rejection without a decision on merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that goodwill arising from a court-approved amalgamation, supported by independent valuation, constitutes acquired goodwill eligible for depreciation. The revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which confirmed the addition. The CIT(A) noted the supplier's non-response to notices, failure to verify the address, and the assessee's inability to provide reliable evidence of goods movement.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to cooperate, the CIT(Exemption) did not fully examine the merits. Therefore, one final opportunity should be granted to the assessee to submit the documents.
The Tribunal found that the applicability of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) depended on factual verification of the agreement, consideration fixation date, and payment mode. It granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, even if mandatory, is eligible for deduction under Section 80G if the conditions of that section are satisfied, especially since the expenditure was already disallowed under Section 37. The Tribunal followed previous decisions that allowed such deductions.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order enhancing the assessment was unsustainable as it was passed in violation of Section 154(3) of the Income Tax Act and principles of natural justice, as no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee.