Loading ITAT cases…
1,109 orders · Page 21 of 23
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing contemporaneous documentary evidence. The authorities below failed to appreciate the fiduciary nature of the receipts and erred in treating gross receipts as income.
The Tribunal held that once the foundational Section 263 order was quashed, the consequential assessment framed solely based on it automatically loses its legal basis and cannot survive. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 on April 4, 2022, for Assessment Year 2015-16 was barred by limitation. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal, which stated that notices for AY 2015-16 issued after April 1, 2021, would be time-barred.
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 had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposit. The opening cash balance was disclosed in the previous year's return and not doubted by the Revenue, and the cash receipts were part of the returned income.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year (AY 2017-18), was barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had failed to record the requisite satisfaction as mandated by Section 149(1)(b) of the Act before issuing the notice. Specifically, the AO did not record any findings demonstrating compliance with the conditions that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, represented by an asset, expenditure, or book entry, and that such information was in the AO's possession. The Tribunal noted that the ledger entries from the searched entities, without confronting the assessee or examining the corresponding entries in the assessee's books, were insufficient to establish escaped income. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated and concluded were set aside. Other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the explanation for non-compliance before the CIT(A) to be plausible. It held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the grounds on merits rather than dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from co-operative banks is debatable and not an apparent mistake. Therefore, the adjustment under section 143(1) and rectification under section 154 were not legally sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from co-operative banks is debatable and not an apparent mistake. Therefore, the adjustment under section 143(1) and rectification under section 154 were not legally sustainable.
The Tribunal held that while registration under Section 12AA is a prerequisite for Sections 11 and 12 benefits, the entire donation cannot be taxed without verifying expenditure. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment as an AOP.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of retaining cash from marriage gifts for medical emergencies of her step-son and mother-in-law was plausible. The time gap between the marriage and deposit, and lack of complete documentary evidence, were insufficient to invoke Section 69A.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's additional grounds of appeal. It found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in violation of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act and that the Assessing Officer relied on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof by providing documentary evidence of share transactions through banking channels, Demat accounts, and recognized stock exchanges. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the additions.
The Tribunal held that only the net profit element embedded in unrecorded receipts should be taxed, not the entire gross receipt. The AO was directed to restrict additions to 14% of the unexplained/unrecorded receipts.
The Tribunal held that only the net profit element embedded in unrecorded receipts should be taxed, not the entire gross receipt. The AO was directed to restrict additions to 14% of the unexplained/unrecorded receipts.
The Tribunal held that only the net profit element embedded in unrecorded receipts should be taxed, not the entire gross receipt. Taxing 'real income' is the legal principle. The AO was directed to restrict additions to 14% of unexplained receipts.
The Tribunal held that only the net profit element embedded in unrecorded receipts should be taxed, not the entire gross receipt. The AO was directed to restrict additions to 14% of the unexplained/unrecorded receipts.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate proceedings are a valuable remedy and the CIT(A) should adjudicate grounds on merits. Considering the assessee's explanation and the substantial additions, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a mismatch in Form 26AS does not justify an addition if the income was already accounted for in the correct assessment year. The addition was deleted to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated in the name of a deceased person are a nullity and bad in law. Following Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 151(ii) regarding the required sanction authority. Consequently, the assessment orders for all three years were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 151(ii) regarding the required sanction authority. Consequently, the assessment orders for all three years were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 151(ii) regarding the required sanction authority. Consequently, the assessment orders for all three years were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation for non-compliance to be bona fide. The Tribunal restored the application to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish the required documents.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 and the order under section 148A(d) were issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the approval for issuing the notice should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner, not the Principal Commissioner, making the notice invalid.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative bank is a species of cooperative society, and therefore, interest earned by a cooperative society from investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The disallowance made by the CPC was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner as per Section 151(ii). As the approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner, the notice is invalid.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This decision was made without prejudice to the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The AO failed to bring on record any evidence to rebut the assessee's submissions or prove any defect in the provided documents.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on July 27, 2022, for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal's case, which stated that such notices for AY 2015-16 issued after April 1, 2021, are time-barred.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A, finding that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits, such as gifts received on marriage. The grounds raised by the assessee challenging the reassessment and the addition were dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This was done without commenting on the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a genuine money-lending business, thus not entitling her to Section 44AD benefits. The addition under Section 68 was set aside for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the delay in filing the appeal and that a reasonable opportunity was denied. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to consider the condonation of delay application leniently.
The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the period available under TOLA for AY 2015-16, relying on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments. Therefore, the notice and consequential assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing documentary evidence for the purchases. The AO did not dispute the evidence, and the corresponding sales were also not doubted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including contract notes, demat statements, and bank statements, to support the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that similar transactions involving the same scrip had been accepted in other cases and that no adverse findings were made by SEBI or in subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not attracted when the impugned transaction is recorded in the assessee's regular books of account and routed through banking channels, even if it appears in a third party's parallel records. The jurisdictional requirement of money not being recorded in books of account is not met.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer to pass fresh orders, considering the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' decisions and to allow the assessee an opportunity to contest the penalty on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass fresh orders, considering the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' decisions and the assessee's plea for an opportunity to contest on merit.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not attracted when the impugned transaction is recorded in the assessee's regular books of account and routed through banking channels, even if it appears in a third party's parallel records. The jurisdictional requirement of money not being recorded in books of account is not met.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer to pass fresh orders, considering the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' decisions and to allow the assessee an opportunity to contest the penalty on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer to pass fresh orders, considering the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' decisions and to allow the assessee an opportunity to contest the penalty on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The AO failed to bring on record any evidence to rebut the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer to pass fresh orders, considering the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' decisions and to allow the assessee an opportunity to contest the penalty on merits.
The tribunal acknowledged the request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to produce necessary evidence, subject to payment of costs, to support their claim that bank deposits represented business and financing transactions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise additional grounds as they were legal in nature and went to the root of the case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on these grounds and the original grounds.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as it was based on conjecture and assumptions, not tangible material. Documentary evidence like the payer's ledger and Form 26AS showed only Rs. 12,00,000/- was credited as interest.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not properly adjudicated certain grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, these issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.