Loading ITAT cases…
290 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an ex-parte order. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to file necessary documents.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee resided in a village and did not receive notices properly, with some hearing notices falling during the COVID-19 pandemic. Considering the facts and the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that surcharge is leviable only when the total income exceeds Rs. 50.00 lakh. Therefore, the levy of surcharge in this case was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that Rule 128(8) and 128(9) were introduced from 01.04.2017 and are not applicable to the assessment year 2016-17. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the filing of Form No.67 is directory and not mandatory, citing previous decisions. Therefore, the claim for FTC deserves to be accepted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 198 days, finding a reasonable cause due to the non-communication from the tax consultant. The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear on several occasions, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted that the cash deposits were from the sale of agricultural products but, due to lack of proper documentation, estimated the income at 25% of the gross receipts, resulting in an addition of Rs. 3,02,855/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 22 days, citing the assessee's age and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal restored the grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, including the issue of non-mentioning of DIN in the assessment order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding it on merits as required by Section 250(6). The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision on merits after granting an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on valid reasons, not a change of opinion, and that the assessee's claim of losses was fictitious. The assessee's failure to appear for hearings and provide evidence further supported the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on the doctrine of merger, as an appeal against an intimation under Section 143(1) stands on its own and must be adjudicated on merit.
The Tribunal held that surcharge is leviable only when the total income exceeds Rs. 50.00 lakh. Therefore, the levy of surcharge in this case was incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that both the TPO and the assessee had not carried out the transfer pricing analysis as per the provisions of the Act. Specifically, the TPO's application of working capital adjustments was selective and lacked proper justification, and the TPO failed to explain how the comparables selected by the assessee failed to satisfy the filters. The TPO also rejected comparables without proper analysis and reasons, such as the rejection of 'Orangescape Technologies Ltd.' based on gross intangibles without demonstrating its impact on profits. Furthermore, the assessee's own search process for comparables was found to be flawed, as it included companies engaged in ITES/BPO, which have different functions from software development. The Tribunal found that the TPO's approach was unscientific and not in accordance with the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the TPO for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to file all necessary documents and the TPO to provide an opportunity to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form No.67 is directory, not mandatory, and allowed the FTC claim. The Tribunal also held that the dividend income should be taxed at the treaty rate of 25%, not 30%, and set aside the CIT(A)'s finding.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that a factual error was made in the original ITR, which was rectified by filing a revised return. However, the AO/CPC allegedly failed to appreciate these facts and dismissed the rectification application. The CIT(A) upheld the AO/CPC's order. The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim regarding the factual error and subsequent rectification needed verification. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO to decide the issue afresh on merits after verifying the assessee's claim. The AO was directed to afford the assessee a due opportunity of hearing. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Grounds of appeal 1 to 5 were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that for ITA No.1792/PUN/2019, the addition of Rs. 12,50,000/- u/s.68 was uncalled for as the assessee had discharged the primary onus. For ITA No.1799/PUN/2019, the addition of Rs. 15,40,000/- u/s.68 was also uncalled for as the lender had sufficient funds and declared income. Other grounds were not pressed.
The Tribunal held that for ITA No.1792/PUN/2019, the addition of Rs. 12,50,000/- u/s.68 was uncalled for as the assessee had discharged the primary onus. For ITA No.1799/PUN/2019, the addition of Rs. 15,40,000/- u/s.68 was also uncalled for as the lender had sufficient funds and declared income. Other grounds were not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the conditions for levying penalty under Section 270A(2) were not met. The excess expenditure claim was considered an inadvertent error and within permissible limits.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect, refraining from adjudicating on the merits. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act permits the admission of nominal members and acceptance of deposits from them. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled that interest income earned by the cooperative society from its business activities is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being from a technical background, completely relied on his tax consultant who claimed excess deductions. The assessee paid the due tax with interest voluntarily before the notice u/s 148 was issued. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, following previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that the additional income from excess stock, having been declared as business income by the assessee, should be taxed at normal rates and not under Section 115BBE as unexplained income or investment. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were reversed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being from a technical background, was unaware of the intricacies of tax filing and relied completely on their tax consultant. The consultant fraudulently claimed excess deductions. The assessee paid the due tax and interest before the notice u/s 148 was issued and later filed a revised return. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had relied on case laws and a CBDT circular which stated that trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions are not covered under Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in selecting the sub-section was not fatal and should be considered in the appropriate clause, especially since all other details were provided. The CIT(E) was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to rectify the application and decide the matter on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity to furnish the required details. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the filing of a return is mandatory, the claim for deduction under Chapter VI-A, such as under Section 80P, has a directory timing. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments, including a Supreme Court decision, which indicated that a claim made during assessment proceedings, even if not in the original return, should be allowed on merits.
The Tribunal held that due to the assessee's non-compliance with statutory notices, the ex-parte assessment by the AO was made. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to grant the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate their case with requisite details and evidence, while also allowing credit for TDS.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Karan Maheshwari. The Tribunal found that the allegations were against JM Financial and did not implicate the assessee, and that the Assessing Officer had not applied their mind properly. The dividend income was treated as exempt.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for late payment of employees' contribution to PF/ESI during the COVID-19 lockdown period was not justified, considering the waiver of penal damages by the EPF Organisation. For the superannuation fund, the Tribunal found that the payments were made before the due date, thus the disallowance was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for reopening was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, as required for reassessments beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that since the notice was based on documents seized from a third party, Section 153C should have been invoked, making the Section 148 notice bad in law. The Tribunal also noted that the ledger account indicated the loan was from earlier years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper adjudication and without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision stating that the CIT(A) must decide appeals on merit.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of non-compliance without considering the assessee's submission that the notices were sent to a wrong email address. The Tribunal acknowledged that the email address mentioned in Form No. 35 was 'jsshah_associates@rediffmail.com' and that the assessee claimed to have not received the notices due to this error. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. The additions made by the AO were not adjudicated on merits by the ITAT in this order.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect mention of a section code was a curable defect. Following a precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that due to the assessee's non-compliance with statutory notices, the ex-parte assessment by the AO was made. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to grant the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate their case with requisite details and evidence, while also allowing credit for TDS.
The ITAT deemed the CIT(E)'s approach to be hyper-technical and, following precedents, directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application. The assessee was allowed to amend its Form 10AB and apply under the correct sub-sections of Section 12A(1)(ac), with the CIT(E) instructed to decide the application on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and a 9-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper adjudication and without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision stating that the CIT(A) must decide appeals on merit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the agricultural nature of the land and to substantiate the claim for agricultural income. Additionally, legal grounds challenging the reassessment were raised for the first time before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the allowability of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from cooperative banks is well-settled. Following its own previous decisions, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee is eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were invalid because the sanctioning authority was not the Principal Chief Commissioner, but only the Principal Commissioner, which is contrary to Section 151 of the Act, given that more than three years had lapsed from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte due to notices being sent to a non-existent email ID. Considering the detailed submissions made by the assessee and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the period of limitation was extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee's medical condition. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have examined the documents filed by the assessee and decided the issues on merits. Since this was not done, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), recognizing the assessee's uneducated background and bonafide belief that the CPC's adjustments could be rectified. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 147 days, finding that non-representation due to unforeseen circumstances should not be detrimental. The Tribunal remitted the issues on merit to the CIT(A) for adjudication, stating that this would meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for non-compliance, acknowledging that notices were sent to the wrong email ID. It remitted the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to be vigilant, update contact details, and cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to comply with hearing notices. However, considering the non-intentional non-appearance and the assessee's prior detailed submissions, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication to provide a fair opportunity of hearing.