Loading ITAT cases…
263 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not in accordance with law. The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 153C by the Finance Act, 2015, which replaced 'belongs to' with 'pertain to', was applicable prospectively from June 1, 2015. Since the search was conducted on April 20, 2010, the satisfaction note was dated September 17, 2012, and the notice under Section 153C was also issued on September 17, 2012, all prior to the amendment, the pre-amendment provisions applied. Under the pre-amendment provisions, the seized documents must 'belong to' the other person. The Tribunal found that the seized work order did not belong to the assessee, although it might pertain to it. Therefore, the condition precedent for invoking Section 153C was not satisfied, making it a jurisdictional issue. Consequently, the entire proceedings taken under Section 153C were null and void. The Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings for all four years. The issue of Section 69C was rendered academic. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not in accordance with law. The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 153C by the Finance Act, 2015, which replaced 'belongs to' with 'pertain to', was applicable prospectively from June 1, 2015. Since the search was conducted on April 20, 2010, the satisfaction note was dated September 17, 2012, and the notice under Section 153C was also issued on September 17, 2012, all prior to the amendment, the pre-amendment provisions applied. Under the pre-amendment provisions, the seized documents must 'belong to' the other person. The Tribunal found that the seized work order did not belong to the assessee, although it might pertain to it. Therefore, the condition precedent for invoking Section 153C was not satisfied, making it a jurisdictional issue. Consequently, the entire proceedings taken under Section 153C were null and void. The Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings for all four years. The issue of Section 69C was rendered academic. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for both assessees. For Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., the delay of 160 days was condoned based on the compassionate situation faced by their consultant. For Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan, the delay of 75 days was condoned due to the unavoidable circumstances arising from the demise of their accountant. The Tribunal adopted a liberal approach, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and observed that when the merits of an appeal are significant, a more liberal approach may be adopted. The Tribunal noted that there was a 'reasonable cause' preventing the assessees from filing within the stipulated time. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal raised by the assessees, stating that its decision in the case of Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. would hold good mutatis mutandis for Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan. The specific reasoning for dismissing the substantive grounds is not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the operative part indicates the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that five specific companies (Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd., Nihilent Ltd., Infobeans Technologies Ltd., E-Infochips Pvt. Ltd., and Ninestars Information Technologies Ltd.) were not functionally comparable to the assessee and directed their exclusion from the list of comparables.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both assessees. The decision in the case of Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. was applied mutatis mutandis to Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both assessees. The decision in the case of Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. was applied mutatis mutandis to the appeals of Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both assessees. The decision in the case of Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. was applied mutatis mutandis to the appeals of Shree Bhaskaracharya Pratishthan.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of Ground No.1 and dismissed it. Ground No.2 was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify the DDT credit. Ground No.3 regarding penalty initiation was dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the assessee's contention. Considering that the appeal was a duplicate, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds related to GST late payment and income tax, holding that the former was an allowable business expenditure and the latter had already been accounted for by the assessee. The remuneration to partners was also allowed based on a partnership deed clause and a precedent. The ground on donation was dismissed as not pressed, and the ground on transportation charges was remitted for verification.
The ITAT admitted the additional evidence and remitted the issue to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and obtain a remand report.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, as such income is derived from investments with other cooperative societies. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions where this issue was consistently decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by investing surplus funds from its business activities is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. It noted that the CIT(A) had erred in not following judicial precedence and consistency in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reference to the DVO for determination of FMV as on 01.04.1981 was not valid, following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and previous ITAT orders. The cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee, as per the registered valuer's report, should be accepted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had conducted a detailed inquiry and taken a legally permissible view, and the method of calculating proportionate disallowance was also correct. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments that interest earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate the availability of the cash deposit in demonetized currency on the relevant date by not producing a cash book or sales register. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the bank account in question was not in the assessee's name, but belonged to a trust. The AO had failed to obtain bank statements and adhere to procedural requirements laid down by the Bombay High Court for reopening assessments. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was levied on the assessee for their careless attitude.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal noted that certain documents were not filed before the AO, preventing him from examining the assessee's claim fully.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order and violated Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found errors in the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s findings, including misidentification of a location for distance calculation and factually incorrect observations about bank withdrawals. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not deciding the core issue of whether the land was a capital asset. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide this issue afresh after providing an opportunity for hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities, resulting in ex-parte orders. However, considering that appeals for similar issues from other assessment years are pending and the possibility of duplicate additions, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the accumulated amount was utilized before 31.03.2023, and the amendment to Section 11(3) regarding the 5-year utilization period is prospective. Therefore, the addition made by the CPC was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting it was due to the tax consultant. The CIT(A)/NFAC's order was set aside as it did not deal with the merits of the case. The issue was remitted back to the file of the JAO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities' decision was not sustainable as the assessee could not substantiate its case due to non-appearance. The issues on merits require restoration to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 286 days, noting a reasonable cause for the failure to file within the stipulated time. The Assessing Officer had passed an ex-parte order due to non-response from the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to justify how all receipts were accounted for in the return of income and remained non-responsive even after multiple opportunities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, providing the assessee with three effective opportunities to file necessary documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding a reasonable cause. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely for non-payment of taxes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for one more opportunity due to ex-parte proceedings and failure to furnish details. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had successfully filed for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid dues. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to move a miscellaneous application if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the calculation of long-term capital gains by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Due to a lack of clear information regarding the sale of property and the calculation of capital gains, the matter was deemed to require re-examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that since the LLP was a registered partner in the partnership firm and the income had already suffered tax at the firm level, the exemption under section 10(2A) should be allowed for the share of profits distributed to the LLP.
The ITAT condoned the 123-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's senior citizen status and dependence on a tax consultant. As the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order, the ITAT remanded the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present arguments on the legal validity of the assessment and the claim for Section 54F deduction.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had indeed made specific inquiries and received elaborate submissions from the assessee, including a detailed reconciliation of the difference between Form 26AS and the books of accounts. Therefore, the assessment order was not considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not admitted the additional evidence. Considering the facts and the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), finding it had reasonable cause due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee's overseas employment. It restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the FTC claim, directing to call for a remand report from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the reasons provided and the judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The issue of deduction u/s.80P was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee is an illiterate senior citizen and might have been unaware of the notices. Considering the interest of justice, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a denovo adjudication, allowing the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the reasons cited and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment. The Tribunal restored the issues raised on merit to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the surcharge is to be levied as per the income tax slab. For income between Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 1 crore, the surcharge is leviable at 10%. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of 37% surcharge.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the receipts were from regular professional services and were reflected in the audited accounts. However, due to non-compliance with the CIT(A)'s notices, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte.
The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the CIT(A)'s orders and noted that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order addressing all contentions. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided the PAN of the creditor, Shri. Ram Kumar Gupta, along with a confirmation letter and the creditor's bank statement. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the initial onus of proving the identity and genuineness of the transaction. While the AO had raised doubts about the creditworthiness of the creditor, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence to establish the transaction. The Tribunal referred to the decision in _CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd._ (supra) and _CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd._ (supra), which emphasize that once the identity and genuineness are established, the burden shifts to the revenue to prove otherwise. Since the revenue had not brought any material on record to controvert the evidence provided by the assessee, the Tribunal deleted the addition. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
The Tribunal observed that the impugned order was ex-parte and the assessee failed to substantiate the addition. The Tribunal set aside the issues raised on merits to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for necessary adjudication, granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to file details. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant and not seek adjournment without cause.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was bad in law. The Tribunal noted that seized papers did not directly name the assessee and that other individuals (Subhash Agarwal, Rajkumar Agarwal, and Ajay Goyal) had accepted the money as their own in settlement proceedings. Therefore, the addition made to the assessee's income was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the power to decide the appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The appellate authority should provide an opportunity to the assessee and verify all facts to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the grounds that the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1), especially when the return was filed within the extended due date due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of CBDT Circular No. 08 of 2021. The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) enabling disallowance of deductions under Chapter VIA due to late filing of returns was effective from April 1, 2021, and thus not applicable to the Assessment Year 2020-21. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including the decisions of its co-ordinate benches, which held that such a denial of deduction under Section 143(1) was unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the CPC to allow the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P.