Loading ITAT cases…
945 orders · Page 8 of 19
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid jurisdiction as the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The AO relied solely on portal-generated information without independent application of mind or verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 582 days in filing the present appeal, considering the intervening proceedings before the Tribunal and the liberty granted to the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and restored the appeal to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found no sufficient basis to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, noting the assessee's failure to provide cogent material to establish the genuineness of the transaction and source of investment. The assessee also remained absent during the appeal proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The AO had ignored these vital facts and failed to point out any specific defects in the evidence provided.
The Tribunal held that the relinquishment of valuable tenancy rights constituted consideration for the PAA. Therefore, the transaction was not one of receiving property without consideration. Furthermore, the PAA was not received during the year under consideration.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity. This was due to the assessment and first appeal being concluded ex-parte, despite the assessee's repeated defaults.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity. This was due to the assessment and first appeal being concluded ex-parte, despite the assessee's repeated defaults.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction with Hotel Imperial Palace, directing the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition related to Nitin Chatwal, agreeing with the first appellate authority that the lender was creditworthy.
The Tribunal held that the entire addition was not warranted as the assessee's business activity and consumption of material were accepted. However, a profit element on the disputed purchases should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that the tolerance band provisions under Section 56(2)(x) are curative and beneficial, intended to remove hardship, and thus apply retrospectively. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that the payment was a repayment of the company's debt to the assessee, not a loan or advance by the company to the shareholder. The character of the payment as a loan or advance is central to section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal held that the commission paid to daily deposit agents was a genuine business expenditure. It also found that additions for estimated interest income on NPA loans and on other loans based on an assumed average rate were not justified, especially when the books of accounts were not rejected.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not supported by cogent and specific evidence linking the assessee's transactions to accommodation entries. The assessee had provided documentary evidence of its share transactions, which resulted in a net profit of Rs. 1,09,030, and had not claimed any exemption under Section 10(38).
The Tribunal held that non-commencement of charitable activities does not automatically disentitle a trust from registration under Section 12AB, especially when the objects are charitable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had acquired land for its charitable objects and directed the CIT(E) to grant registration.
The Tribunal held that the sponsorship receipts were intrinsically linked to the charitable event and did not constitute business income. It also found that the procedural lapse regarding the audit report was not a sufficient reason to deny the substantive exemption. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was time-barred as it was issued beyond three years with escaped income below the threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs. Furthermore, the approval obtained from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT was not in accordance with law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that for a year preceding the search year, when the search was initiated after 01.04.2021, the Assessing Officer must assume jurisdiction under sections 147 and 148. Initiating assessment under section 143(3) without a section 148 notice was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that non-commencement of charitable activities does not necessarily disentitle a trust from registration, especially when the objects are charitable and there is evidence of steps taken towards achieving them. The CIT(E) was unjustified in denying renewal solely on the ground of no activity.
The Tribunal held that proceeding with reassessment without disposing of objections by a separate speaking order is a jurisdictional defect. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the cash payment and its source. However, to ensure natural justice, the matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the estimation of net profit at 4.00% of turnover was reasonable, considering the assessee's past results and the lack of comparable data. The net profit was directed to be restricted to Rs. 22,95,066.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for transport charges was not warranted as the recipient had disclosed income and provided transporter's PAN. The issue of MVAT claim was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that Market Cess is a statutory levy not subject to TDS under Section 194C. Payments to sub-agents and supervision charges were part of government-sanctioned expenditure routed through the assessee. The outstanding sundry creditors did not represent cessation of liability under Section 41(1).
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had condoned the delay in filing Form 10B under section 119(2)(b). Therefore, the assessment order was set aside and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that Market Cess is a statutory levy not subject to TDS under Section 194C. Payments to sub-agents and supervision charges were part of government-sanctioned expenditure routed through the assessee. The outstanding sundry creditors did not represent cessation of liability under Section 41(1).
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit. The assessee failed to satisfactorily establish the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders, and genuineness of the loan transactions even after opportunities at the assessment and appellate stages.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the pending appeal for AY 2012-13 and the order in the assessee's son's case to avoid conflicting decisions.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order did not show any evidence of providing an opportunity to the assessee to make submissions. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal found that crucial facts regarding the purchase and sale of shares, including any potential arrangements between entities and the timing of transactions, needed further examination. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the entire suppressed turnover cannot be treated as income; only the profit element embedded in it is taxable. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was restored for verification of individual payments.
The Tribunal held that the rate of 0.5% initially proposed by the assessee is an acceptable arm's length benchmark for the corporate guarantee, considering the specific facts of the case and the guidance from higher courts. The TPO's adjustment based on credit ratings and bond yields was found to be inappropriate.
The Tribunal held that the conditions for attracting section 44AB were not established, and the assessee had a reasonable cause under section 273B. Therefore, the penalty under section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year without satisfying the conditions of Section 149(1)(b) and without obtaining approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151(ii). Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that Market Cess is a statutory levy not subject to TDS under Section 194C. Payments to sub-agents and supervision charges were part of government-sanctioned expenditure routed through the assessee. The outstanding sundry creditors did not represent cessation of liability under Section 41(1).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance was made primarily because the recipient did not respond to a notice under section 133(6). However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted various documents and that the entire matter needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that a co-operative bank does not cease to be a co-operative society for the purpose of section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the interest earned by the assessee from its investment with the co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that the conditions for attracting section 44AB were not established, and the assessee had a reasonable cause under section 273B. Therefore, the penalty under section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for transport charges was not warranted as the recipient had disclosed income and provided transporter's PAN. The issue of MVAT claim was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that mere non-commencement of charitable activities does not automatically disqualify a trust from obtaining registration, especially when the objects are charitable and there is evidence of steps taken towards achieving them. The CIT(E) was unjustified in denying renewal.
The Tribunal condoned the assessee's non-compliance before the Ld. Commissioner, citing plausible and genuine reasons. The case was restored to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for transport charges was not warranted as the recipient had disclosed income and provided transporter's PAN. The issue of MVAT claim was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.
The Tribunal, considering the lack of submissions and the need for proper adjudication, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This decision is subject to a cost of Rs. 11,000/- to be deposited by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had furnished sufficient documents to prove the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the loan parties. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's grounds regarding disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that generalized third-party statements without establishing a nexus with the assessee's specific transactions cannot constitute conclusive evidence for disallowing purchases. The assessee's contemporaneous documentary evidence of purchase, delivery, and utilization of material was considered sufficient.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had furnished sufficient documents to prove the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the loan parties. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's grounds regarding disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable as the information relied upon by the Assessing Officer originated from the assessee's own IDS declaration. The CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the same income cannot be taxed twice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice, considering the ex parte assessment and the unexamined merits. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not recorded independent findings and had relied on an irrelevant case. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that once additional evidence was examined by the AO in remand proceedings and specific findings were recorded, the CIT(A) could not sustain original additions solely based on the assessee's initial failure to produce documents. The appellate adjudication must consider the finally constituted evidentiary record.