Loading ITAT cases…
124 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing and can lead fresh evidence.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and allowed it. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the objects of the assessee were charitable and the activities carried out, such as providing educational support to underprivileged students and distributing school supplies, were also charitable. The CIT(Exemption)'s grounds for rejection were found to be irrelevant or unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the revision order under section 263 was invalid and deemed never to have been issued because it did not bear the mandatory computer-generated DIN as per CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019. This decision followed the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the facts identical to a favorable High Court ruling. On merits, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to deduction as the PF contribution was deposited on the next working day after a national holiday.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without a decision on merits, which is contrary to statutory requirements. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's dismissal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits was unreasonable and unjustified. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration was for both shares and negative covenants (non-compete, etc.). It directed the AO to re-attribute the sale consideration to segregate amounts for share sale and negative covenants, taxing the latter as business income.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration was for both the shares and negative covenants like non-compete. It directed the AO to re-evaluate and segregate the consideration attributable to shares and negative covenants, taxing the latter as business income.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions in identical facts for other family members, held that the addition of Rs. 2,20,000/- on account of unexplained silver articles was not justified and directed the AO to delete it.
The Tribunal held that if the primary assessment under Section 153A is invalid due to lack of incriminating material, the subsequent revision order under Section 263 is also unsustainable. The assessee is entitled to challenge the correctness of the primary proceedings to the extent of the revision action.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including photographs and newspaper cuttings, to demonstrate its charitable activities. The objects of the trust were also found to be charitable in nature.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be met by remanding the matter back to the CIT, Exemption for a fresh decision. The assessee should be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the date of registration of the sale agreement, which fell within the relevant assessment year, determined the taxability. The assessee's contention regarding her husband's return was dismissed as invalid.
The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. The assessee is granted liberty to file all supporting evidence for its claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed all necessary details and had not furnished inaccurate particulars. The addition was based on a deeming provision, and the assessee's financial difficulties and spoiled relations with creditors explained the inability to produce them.
The Tribunal held that goodwill arises either by acquisition of a company with existing goodwill or by paying consideration in excess of net assets. In this case, the subsidiary had no goodwill in its books, and the consideration paid was less than the net assets acquired, thus no goodwill was purchased.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored all substantive grounds to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to ensure necessary compliance within three opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application was in violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of effective notice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the 7/12 extract, showing 'Jowar' cultivation and self-cultivation by the owner, was strong evidence of agricultural use. It also noted that Google Images were taken during non-monsoon periods, making them unreliable for proving the absence of crops.
The tribunal held that the rejection order violated the principles of natural justice as a show-cause notice was not issued before rejection. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that if the foundational additions, which formed the basis for reopening, are deleted, then any other additions made subsequently cannot be sustained. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as the basis for reopening no longer existed.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had provided some supportive details, they were insufficient to fully substantiate the claim. However, the Revenue also failed to dispute the execution of services in principle. Therefore, a partial disallowance was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a letter dated 16.10.2023 seeking to withdraw the instant appeal. The Learned Departmental Representative (DR) stated that they had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in terms of the withdrawal request, subject to all just exceptions. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No specific issues arising from the assessment order were decided on merits as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if the specific limb of the offense (concealment or inaccurate particulars) is not consistently alleged and proven. The change in the basis of the penalty rendered it invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reopening for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 was invalid as there was no fresh tangible material to rebut the original assessment and the AO failed to pinpoint the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly. The reopening for AY 2013-14 was also held invalid as it was a case of 'change of opinion' without fresh material.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rectification was based on an incorrect premise regarding the assessee's registration. The AO's attempt to deny the deduction in rectification was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 was invalid as there was no fresh tangible material to rebut the original assessment and the AO failed to pinpoint the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly. The reopening for AY 2013-14 was also held invalid as it was a case of 'change of opinion' without fresh material.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable time to cure defects and remove discrepancies. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration with a clear opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 was invalid as there was no fresh tangible material to rebut the original assessment and the AO failed to pinpoint the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly. The reopening for AY 2013-14 was also held invalid as it was a case of 'change of opinion' without fresh material.
For A.Y. 2011-12, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the assessment order and directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 14,61,400/-. The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material and for an unabated assessment year where the search occurred after the time limit for issuing a Section 153A notice had expired, the completed assessment could not be disturbed, relying on the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal did not explicitly rule on the CIT(A)'s deletion of expenditure and investment additions or confirmation of cash deposit additions, as the entire assessment was quashed on the jurisdictional ground. For A.Y. 2012-13, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was also dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the estimation of agricultural income and the benefit of telescoping. Specific findings on other additions were not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates the CIT(A)'s order was largely sustained or the appeals were dismissed. For A.Y. 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be arbitrary and based on presumptions. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the case was remitted to the Assessing Officer to compute the profit arising on the sale of land, considering the actual cost of acquisition and other expenses incurred on the sale.
For A.Y. 2011-12, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the assessment order and directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 14,61,400/-. The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material and for an unabated assessment year where the search occurred after the time limit for issuing a Section 153A notice had expired, the completed assessment could not be disturbed, relying on the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal did not explicitly rule on the CIT(A)'s deletion of expenditure and investment additions or confirmation of cash deposit additions, as the entire assessment was quashed on the jurisdictional ground. For A.Y. 2012-13, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was also dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the estimation of agricultural income and the benefit of telescoping. Specific findings on other additions were not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates the CIT(A)'s order was largely sustained or the appeals were dismissed. For A.Y. 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be arbitrary and based on presumptions. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the case was remitted to the Assessing Officer to compute the profit arising on the sale of land, considering the actual cost of acquisition and other expenses incurred on the sale.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s allowance of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation without a time limit, based on Supreme Court decisions, was correct. However, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s allowance regarding the provision of interest written back and the write back of sundry creditors, as these claims were rejected by the CBDT.
For A.Y. 2011-12, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the assessment order and directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 14,61,400/-. The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material and for an unabated assessment year where the search occurred after the time limit for issuing a Section 153A notice had expired, the completed assessment could not be disturbed, relying on the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal did not explicitly rule on the CIT(A)'s deletion of expenditure and investment additions or confirmation of cash deposit additions, as the entire assessment was quashed on the jurisdictional ground. For A.Y. 2012-13, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was also dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the estimation of agricultural income and the benefit of telescoping. Specific findings on other additions were not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates the CIT(A)'s order was largely sustained or the appeals were dismissed. For A.Y. 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be arbitrary and based on presumptions. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the case was remitted to the Assessing Officer to compute the profit arising on the sale of land, considering the actual cost of acquisition and other expenses incurred on the sale.
For A.Y. 2011-12, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the assessment order and directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 14,61,400/-. The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material and for an unabated assessment year where the search occurred after the time limit for issuing a Section 153A notice had expired, the completed assessment could not be disturbed, relying on the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal did not explicitly rule on the CIT(A)'s deletion of expenditure and investment additions or confirmation of cash deposit additions, as the entire assessment was quashed on the jurisdictional ground. For A.Y. 2012-13, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was also dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the estimation of agricultural income and the benefit of telescoping. Specific findings on other additions were not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates the CIT(A)'s order was largely sustained or the appeals were dismissed. For A.Y. 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be arbitrary and based on presumptions. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the case was remitted to the Assessing Officer to compute the profit arising on the sale of land, considering the actual cost of acquisition and other expenses incurred on the sale.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was invalid due to the non-mentioning of DIN, rendering the subsequent assessment order bad in law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated September 30, 2021, was invalid due to the non-mention of a Document Identification Number (DIN). This contravened CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates DIN for all communications issued after October 1, 2019, to ensure an audit trail. The Tribunal found that the circular applied to statutory approvals like the one under Section 153D, which is a prerequisite for passing an assessment order under Section 153A. Consequently, the assessment order dated September 30, 2021, passed in pursuance of this invalid approval, was quashed. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on this ground, rendering other grounds academic. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the issue became academic due to the quashing of the assessment order. Interest under Section 234A was held to be consequential and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated September 30, 2021, was invalid due to the non-mention of a Document Identification Number (DIN). This contravened CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates DIN for all communications issued after October 1, 2019, to ensure an audit trail. The Tribunal found that the circular applied to statutory approvals like the one under Section 153D, which is a prerequisite for passing an assessment order under Section 153A. Consequently, the assessment order dated September 30, 2021, passed in pursuance of this invalid approval, was quashed. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on this ground, rendering other grounds academic. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the issue became academic due to the quashing of the assessment order. Interest under Section 234A was held to be consequential and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated September 30, 2021, was invalid due to the non-mention of a Document Identification Number (DIN). This contravened CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates DIN for all communications issued after October 1, 2019, to ensure an audit trail. The Tribunal found that the circular applied to statutory approvals like the one under Section 153D, which is a prerequisite for passing an assessment order under Section 153A. Consequently, the assessment order dated September 30, 2021, passed in pursuance of this invalid approval, was quashed. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on this ground, rendering other grounds academic. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the issue became academic due to the quashing of the assessment order. Interest under Section 234A was held to be consequential and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision proceedings were not justified as they were initiated solely based on a report from the Assessing Officer (AO) and not on the PCIT's independent examination and satisfaction. The PCIT failed to demonstrate that he had called for and examined the record before forming an opinion.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated September 30, 2021, was invalid due to the non-mention of a Document Identification Number (DIN). This contravened CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates DIN for all communications issued after October 1, 2019, to ensure an audit trail. The Tribunal found that the circular applied to statutory approvals like the one under Section 153D, which is a prerequisite for passing an assessment order under Section 153A. Consequently, the assessment order dated September 30, 2021, passed in pursuance of this invalid approval, was quashed. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on this ground, rendering other grounds academic. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the issue became academic due to the quashing of the assessment order. Interest under Section 234A was held to be consequential and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision proceedings were not justified as they were initiated solely based on a report from the Assessing Officer (AO) and not on the PCIT's independent examination and satisfaction. The PCIT failed to demonstrate that he had called for and examined the record before forming an opinion.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated September 30, 2021, was invalid due to the non-mention of a Document Identification Number (DIN). This contravened CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates DIN for all communications issued after October 1, 2019, to ensure an audit trail. The Tribunal found that the circular applied to statutory approvals like the one under Section 153D, which is a prerequisite for passing an assessment order under Section 153A. Consequently, the assessment order dated September 30, 2021, passed in pursuance of this invalid approval, was quashed. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on this ground, rendering other grounds academic. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the issue became academic due to the quashing of the assessment order. Interest under Section 234A was held to be consequential and dismissed.
The ITAT held that due to the ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding which assessment order was relied upon by the CIT(A), the matter needed to be re-examined. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the case was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of MPS Ltd. and Domex E-Data Pvt. Ltd. from the list of comparables, following its own previous orders. The appeal regarding CES Ltd. was not fully adjudicated in the provided text.