Loading ITAT cases…
1,109 orders · Page 20 of 23
The Tribunal held that the penalty was rightly levied as the donation was part of a bogus scheme, constituting misreporting of income. The rejection of the immunity application was also upheld as the penalty proceedings were initiated for misreporting. The computation of the penalty was found to be correct.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional grounds raised by the assessee, particularly the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the period of limitation for filing an appeal should commence from the date the assessee was made aware of the actual tax demand, not from the initial NIL demand notice. The delay in informing the assessee of the demand due to technical glitches cannot be attributed to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) subsequently granted approval to the assessee trust under Section 12AB on a later date. Therefore, the present appeal has become infructuous and does not require adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) ignored the actual facts of the case and failed to demonstrate that the services rendered by Facebook, Ireland were in the nature of fees for technical services or royalty. The assessee was taking the privilege of Facebook's platform, which did not involve any technical services or royalty.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in treating the dividend as a return of capital and reducing it from the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Supreme Court judgments concerning similar allegations against the same mutual fund.
The Tribunal noted that the subsequent approval under Section 12AB rendered the appeals infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal clarified that the surcharge applicable to the assessee's total income is 15% as per the Finance Act, 2021, resolving ambiguity in the CIT(A)'s order. The AO/CPC is directed to recompute tax liability accordingly.
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the substantial additions made and the principle of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to contest the case on merits before the CIT(A), subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present the required documentation. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the applications.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the AO's failure to properly assume jurisdiction. The issuance and valid service of jurisdictional notices are mandatory, and the AO's actions, including allotting an incorrect PAN and sending notices to invalid email addresses, vitiated the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without making necessary inquiries or verification regarding the prior period expenses, attracting Explanation 2(a) to Section 263. The PCIT's action of setting aside the assessment for fresh inquiry was deemed within the scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, including a confirmation of account and bank statements, which were not produced before the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the source of investment. Due to non-compliance with notices and lack of satisfactory explanation, the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the investment as unexplained income.
The Tribunal noted that the subsequent approval under Section 12AB rendered the appeals infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that gains arising from the early settlement of forward foreign exchange contracts, entered into solely for hedging underlying debt investments, should be treated on capital account. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that once the addition in the quantum assessment is deleted, the penalty levied on the same addition cannot survive. The CIT(A) had correctly followed the Tribunal's decision.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty, agreeing with the lower authorities that notices were duly served electronically and the assessee failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause for non-compliance. The electronic mode of service was considered valid under Section 282 of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present the required documentation. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the applications.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) ignored the actual facts of the case and failed to demonstrate that the services rendered by Facebook, Ireland were in the nature of fees for technical services or royalty. The assessee was taking the privilege of Facebook's platform, which did not involve any technical services or royalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) incorrectly assumed the AO's order was ex-parte and thus could not invoke Section 251(1) to set aside the order for fresh assessment. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on April 4, 2022, for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as per Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was vitiated, and the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the balance amount was conditional, disputed, and not reasonably certain of collection during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of a disallowance of Rs. 3.97 lakh for expenses, noting they were paid from the assessee's bank account and related to the project.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice, as the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on April 4, 2022, for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as per Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was vitiated, and the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the transaction had substantially crystallized prior to the introduction of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and that the proviso to the section, allowing the use of the agreement date's stamp duty value, was applicable. The addition based on the difference between the stamp duty value on the registration date and the consideration was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on a retracted statement and a document that did not prove actual payment of the alleged cash. Since the foundational fact of receiving additional consideration was not proven, the consequential addition was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh examination. The assessee was directed to provide documentary evidence of its newly commenced charitable activities.
The Tribunal held that consistency in approach is important, and since the delay was condoned for the subsequent assessment year on identical facts, the delay in the present year should also be condoned. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they no longer wished to pursue the matter. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that the error was clerical and inadvertent, supported by an affidavit from the Chartered Accountant. Despite the repetition of the error, the primary facts were disclosed, and the assessee accepted the recomputation, thus the penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition for alleged suppression of revenue was unsustainable as it was based solely on Form 26AS without rejecting books of account or independent evidence. The Tribunal also held that additions to book profit under Section 115JB were impermissible as they were not covered by Explanation 1 to Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the earlier allotment letters and MOUs, acted upon by payments, constituted agreements fixing the consideration, even with subsequent revisions. The proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) was applicable, and the stamp duty value on the date of the relevant allotment should be considered, not the date of registration.
The tribunal held that the appellate order suffered from a fundamental jurisdictional infirmity due to the incorrect identification of the assessee. Proceedings against a deceased person must strictly follow Section 159 of the Act, which was not done.
The Tribunal held that while an APA may not be strictly binding for a year not covered, its agreed margins carry persuasive value, especially when the functional profile remains unchanged. The Tribunal found the assessee's earned margins to be broadly aligned with APA margins and within the permissible tolerance band.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner was insufficient as the notice was issued beyond three years, requiring higher authority approval under section 151. This lack of valid sanction was a jurisdictional defect, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that after the amendment to Section 36(1)(vii), it is sufficient for the debt to be written off in the books of account as irrecoverable, citing the Supreme Court judgment in TRF Ltd. v. CIT. The Revenue did not dispute that the amounts were trade receivables or that they were written off in the books.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the existing approval submitted by the assessee and decide the case afresh after providing an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is triggered only when there is exempt income. Since no exempt income was earned, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. This principle was applied to both normal computation and book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition is purely on an estimated basis, as it does not constitute concealment of income. Furthermore, a defective notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c), which fails to specify the exact charge, renders the penalty proceedings unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was void ab initio because no notice under section 143(2) was issued after the assessee filed its return in response to a notice under section 148. The CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment without adjudicating this crucial jurisdictional ground.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessees' default, granted a final opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to the nature of the legal grounds. This was subject to strict conditions, including payment of costs.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was consistently non-compliant. However, considering the setting aside of the assessment order, the penalty was restricted to Rs. 10,000/- and the balance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present its case as the show cause notice was sent to a former manager's email. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee proved the land was used for business purposes as a storage yard for trading inventories. It also found the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to finance the purchase.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, and the books of account were not rejected. Suspicion alone cannot replace evidence for making additions.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to adjudicate the additional grounds, subject to the assessees paying costs and complying with strict conditions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that VSAT is part of a computer eligible for 60% depreciation, 'Vanda loss' is a business loss and not speculation loss, and bad debts were allowable. The Department's grounds of appeal were dismissed.