Loading ITAT cases…
225 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have decided all grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back with a direction to decide the legal grounds first after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised new legal issues for the first time before it, which were not considered by the lower appellate authority. Citing the judgment in Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held it has no jurisdiction to decide such grounds without them being first adjudicated by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised new legal issues for the first time before it, which were not considered by the lower appellate authority. Citing the judgment in Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held it has no jurisdiction to decide such grounds without them being first adjudicated by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act were not valid in law due to the use of a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years (AYs 2015-16 to 2020-21 in one instance, and AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19 in another). The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Revenue's SLP. The reasoning is that a satisfaction note is required for each assessment year, and a consolidated note vitiates the entire assessment. Therefore, the assessment proceedings are quashed. Ground No. 2, relating to this issue, is allowed. Ground No. 4, concerning the disallowance of grants, is dismissed as covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court's decision in Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT. For AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19, the challenge to interest under Section 234B is consequential and the AO is directed to grant relief.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C based on a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years are invalid. Following Supreme Court and co-ordinate bench decisions, such consolidated notes vitiate the entire assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised new legal issues for the first time before it, which were not considered by the lower appellate authority. Citing the judgment in Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held it has no jurisdiction to decide such grounds without them being first adjudicated by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C based on a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years are invalid. Following Supreme Court and co-ordinate bench decisions, such consolidated notes vitiate the entire assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay, especially when a significant portion of the delay was due to a clerical error. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities.
The Tribunal condoned the 500-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the 'reasonable cause' presented by the assessee. However, as the assessee did not appear for the hearing, the Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal based on non-compliance without addressing the substantive issues.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 125 days in filing the appeal, accepting the explanation of the untimely death of the assessee's authorized representative as a reasonable cause. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's due date for filing the return was indeed 30.09.2019, making the return not belated. Consequently, the disallowance under section 80P and the invocation of section 80AC by the CPC were incorrect. The Tribunal also noted that the CPC's powers to disallow deductions for belated returns were conferred only from 01.04.2021.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without properly appreciating the facts and submissions. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file, directing him to grant the assessee another opportunity to submit evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised new legal issues for the first time before it, which were not considered by the lower appellate authority. Citing the judgment in Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held it has no jurisdiction to decide such grounds without them being first adjudicated by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish evidence before the lower authorities and did not pursue the appeal diligently. However, considering the new documents filed, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. However, on merits, the CIT(A) did not provide relief, citing non-furnishing of documents. The Tribunal remitted all issues back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish details and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that no notional rent should be charged on properties used by a partnership firm for its business purposes, as per established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the 15% accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) is an absolute exemption, and the application of section 11(2) does not nullify it, following various Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow deduction on 15% of the trust's receipts.
The Tribunal found that the seized documents suggested a cash payment for land purchase. However, due to issues regarding finality of the addition and contentions raised by the assessee, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer took a plausible view by treating the excess cash and stock as business income, especially since the assessee explained its source. Therefore, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) were not met.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance under Section 14A by the AO and CIT(A) was excessive. Considering the facts and circumstances, and the agreement of both parties on a reasonable disallowance, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 10 lakhs.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted relief based on the assessee being a Venture Capital Undertaking and investments being made by a SEBI registered Alternate Investment Fund. However, the assessee's counsel fairly admitted that WEL is not a SEBI registered Alternate Investment Fund. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s basis for relief was incorrect as it relied on the treatment of investment from Ascent Private Equity Trust, which is a SEBI registered fund, without considering that WEL is not. Therefore, the issue regarding the investment from WEL deserved to be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided other details regarding WEL, including the source of investment and valuation by a Registered Valuer using the Discounted Cash Flow method. The grounds raised by the assessee in the Cross Objection, concerning the valuation report by a SEBI registered Merchant Banker, were also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as they related to the same issue. Operative Direction: The appeal and cross-objection were allowed for statistical purposes, remitting the issue of investment from WEL to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer took a plausible view by treating the excess cash and stock as business income, especially since the assessee explained its source. Therefore, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) were not met.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry and examination before allowing the depreciation claim. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 938 days, accepting the 'reasonable cause' explanation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the CBDT Notification dated 24.05.2023 and therefore restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee primarily prayed for an opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) to furnish details explaining the nature and source of the alleged sum. Considering the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.