Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of LTCG from sale of M/s. Kappac Pharma Ltd. shares had been consistently upheld by various coordinate benches and High Courts, including the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Gujarat High Court. The Tribunal followed these precedents, observing that the assessee fulfilled all conditions under section 10(38) by holding shares for over a year, selling through a registered broker on a recognized stock exchange, and paying STT.
The Tribunal held that according to the first proviso to Section 50C of the Act, the stamp duty valuation on the date of the agreement (when consideration was received) should be considered, provided the consideration was received through banking channels before the agreement date. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer to determine the stamp duty valuation as of the date of consideration receipt.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been granted a proper opportunity for adjudication in the reassessment proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances, and to do justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 504 days, acknowledging the bonafide reasons and justice-oriented approach. The appeal was restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without delving into the merits. Citing a jurisdictional High Court ruling, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits. Therefore, the assessee deserves another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for hearings before lower authorities. However, considering the arguments made before it, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order. It directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a fresh assessment after considering whether the property is agricultural land, the assessee's share, and the source of income.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the payment as a cash deposit without proper verification. The assessee provided details of cheques issued, totaling ₹24,50,000/-, which were paid from salary income and sale of equity shares, supported by bank statements. The revenue authorities failed to controvert the assessee's claim of making payments through banking channels.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the source of cash deposits before the lower authorities. However, to ensure fairness, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee provided bank statements, declarations, and identity proofs of the lenders, which sufficiently explained the nature and source of the funds. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to treat the sum as unexplained money.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte best judgment assessments. Considering the assessee's contention that the transactions were accounted for in her husband's business and that she failed to respond to notices, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The High Court ruling states that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits, even in ex-parte orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 469 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a denovo assessment, considering all details and submissions, and affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's bonafide reasons. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing a fair hearing, citing a High Court judgment that mandates disposal on merits even in ex-parte orders.
The Tribunal noted that legal issues were raised for the first time before it and not before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to restore all issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing and a speaking order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 348 days, finding reasonable cause. On merits, despite the absence of complete documentary evidence, the Tribunal noted the sale agreement mentioned a triple-storeyed building. Considering the assessee's demise and the interest of justice, the Tribunal allowed 80% of the claimed cost of improvement, directing the AO to re-calculate the indexed cost accordingly and grant the deduction.
The tribunal held that the sale deed clearly indicated that the seller (assessee) agreed to bear the registration charges. The Bombay Stamp Act also supports this interpretation in the absence of a contrary agreement. The revenue did not provide any evidence to disprove this.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and afforded the assessee one more opportunity to present her case. The appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte best judgment assessments. Considering the assessee's contention that the transactions were accounted for in her husband's business and that she failed to respond to notices, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that grounds challenging the notice and assessment validity were dismissed as not pressed. Regarding the cash addition, the first contention that the purchase was primarily by the husband lacked merit. However, the alternative contention concerning the source of cash from the mother-in-law was found to have merit.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing bonafide reasons and a justice-oriented approach, supported by apex court judgments. The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P by the CPC via intimation under Section 143(1)(a)(v) was erroneous as the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) was prospective and effective from April 1, 2021, while the denial was based on pre-amendment provisions or incorrect application of Section 80AC.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CPC did not have the power to make disallowance under section 80AC prior to the amendment effective from April 1, 2021. Since the intimation was passed before this amendment, the disallowance is uncalled for.