Loading ITAT cases…
1,109 orders · Page 9 of 23
The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause should not be the sole ground for rejection, following a High Court judgment. In the case of ITR-7 filing, the Tribunal found bona fide reasons and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since sales were accepted and books were not rejected, the entire purchase value could not be treated as unexplained expenditure. At most, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be taxed.
The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.
The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted by an incompetent authority, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order was also deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a commission agent and not a sub-contractor, and its commission income did not exceed the threshold limit for audit under Section 44AB. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was not attracted.
The Tribunal, while not condoning the Assessee's non-compliance, decided to remand the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh adjudication in the interest of substantial justice, subject to the Assessee paying costs.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate the charges of pre-arranged transactions. The purchase and sale of shares were conducted on the stock exchange, routed through banking channels, and reflected in the demat account, thus demonstrating genuineness.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including a certificate from HPCL and bank statements, which were deemed material to the case. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining this evidence.
The Tribunal held that the executive search fees received by the assessee are neither FTS nor royalty, following its consistent past decisions. The Tribunal also directed that interest on income tax refund should be taxed as per the DTAA and directed verification for TDS credit and ensuring tax rates align with the DTAA.
The Tribunal held that penalties paid to the stock exchange for operational lapses are not penal in nature and are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1). Therefore, levying penalty under Section 270A on such disallowances is unjustified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was in the interest of substantial justice. Both the quantum and penalty appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was in the interest of substantial justice. Both the quantum and penalty appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal without affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was remanded for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 408 days, finding sufficient cause and no mala fide intention. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for AY 2010-11 in the assessee's own case was decided against the assessee, holding that intangible assets were artificially created. However, the Tribunal also acknowledged a subsequent, contrary decision by a Coordinate Bench in Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., which allowed depreciation on assets taken over if Section 47(xiii) conditions were met and the transaction was genuine. The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) relied on United Breweries Ltd. and distinguished the assessee's cases. The Tribunal found that the controversy required examination in light of subsequent judicial developments, including the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment in Pr. CIT v. Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and the conflicting Coordinate Bench decisions. Since the impugned orders did not reflect an examination of these subsequent precedents, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. The Ld. AO is directed to examine the claim afresh in light of all judicial precedents, verify the factual matrix and Section 47(xiii) conditions, and pass a speaking order after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. All contentions are left open for the Ld. AO.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a non-existent entity is void ab initio. Following the principle of consistency and previous judgments, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee a final opportunity to be heard, despite their repeated defaults.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the 80G approval was consequential to the rejection of the 12AB registration. Since the 12AB registration matter was restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration, the 80G approval also needed to be reconsidered.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee consistently offered share trading profits as business income and did not claim any exemption under Section 10(38). The AO's assumptions lacked substantive evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee, considering her age and lack of tech-savviness, constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the liability under Section 201 of the Act is independent of other consequences like disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The assessee is deemed to be in default unless specific conditions mentioned in the proviso to Section 201(1) are satisfied. These conditions include the recipient furnishing their return of income, taking the income into account, paying taxes due, and furnishing a certificate from an accountant in Form 26A. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had only disallowed 30% of the amount under Section 40(a)(ia), thus claiming deduction for the remaining 70%. This distinguishes the case from precedents like Pfizer Limited, where the entire provision was added back. Since these conditions were not examined by the lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to provide the assessee an opportunity to demonstrate that the requisite conditions for not being treated as an assessee-in-default are satisfied. The appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-compliance with the notice to be plausible due to a significant time gap between notices. The case was remanded for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis of the penalty, were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty proceedings could not independently survive. The fate of the penalty must abide by the outcome of the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. Considering the assessee's death and the circumstances, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the legal heirs.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(3) was prospective, and the assessee was entitled to utilize the accumulated income in the year immediately following the expiry of the five-year period, as per the law prevailing at the time of accumulation. The adjustment made by the CPC was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order is vitiated in law for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. The failure to pass a separate speaking order disposing of objections before reassessment renders the proceedings void.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's medical condition. On merits, the tribunal found that the assessee had provided a sufficient cash flow statement explaining the deposits, which was not rebutted by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was unsustainable due to being issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, making it barred by limitation under Section 149. Additionally, the sanction for the notice was not obtained from the competent authority as prescribed under Section 151(ii).
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, quashing the reassessment notice and order as they were issued in the name of the deceased assessee, which is a substantial error not curable under Section 292B.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding payment to CSLA, holding it was a reimbursement without an income element. For payment to Mr. Soumiachandran, it was allowed for statistical purposes as TDS was deducted. The issue of year-end provisions was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication with additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence without considering sufficient cause for its non-production before the AO. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after admitting the evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order before the deadline granted for submitting evidence. The Tribunal also found that additional evidence regarding bill discounting transactions was not considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the denial of registration was based on technical grounds and an inadvertent mistake in filing. The CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the application.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must apply their mind to all issues. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not properly examined the documentary evidence produced by the assessee for all three grounds. Therefore, all issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh examination and verification.
The Tribunal held that the denial of registration was based on technical grounds and an inadvertent mistake in filing. The CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the application.
The tribunal allowed the partners' remuneration as per the partnership deed's flexibility clause and deleted the disallowance of interest and bank charges, citing sufficient own funds for project construction. The ad-hoc disallowance for other expenses was reduced from 10% to 5%.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the facts and appreciated the submissions made by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's rejection of books of accounts and subsequent additions were not justified.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a non-existent entity is void ab initio. Following the principle of consistency and previous judgments, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in selecting the sub-clause was inadvertent and not fatal. The CIT(E) was directed to treat the application under the correct sub-clause and grant registration if other conditions are met.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 on 12.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 was invalid and time-barred. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs Rajeev Bansal and subsequent judgments.
The Tribunal held that the denial of registration was based on technical grounds and an inadvertent mistake in filing. The CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It further held that the notice issued for reopening the assessment under Section 148 was barred by limitation, making the consequential assessment void ab initio.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, including a fresh Form 26A, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verifying the evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
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 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 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.