Loading ITAT cases…
220 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the explanation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case and substantiate its application with requisite documents.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to verify the deduction claim under Section 80JJAA after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT found that CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without addressing the condonation of delay or merits. Citing Supreme Court precedents on condonation of delay, the ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A)/NFAC. The case was remanded back to CIT(A)/NFAC with directions to decide the appeal on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not sustainable. Regarding the disallowance of compensation of Rs. 21.51 crores, the Tribunal found that no incriminating material was discovered during the search action that indicated the compensation paid was not genuine. The statement recorded under Section 131, which formed the basis for the AO's findings, was taken after the search concluded. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 76,55,000/- on account of cash deposits was also made without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was already completed under Section 153C, and the subsequent additions under Section 153A were based on post-search inquiries and information gathered during assessment proceedings, not on search findings. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that in cases of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the approval for the assessment under Section 153A was obtained mechanically. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A were quashed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not sustainable. Regarding the disallowance of compensation of Rs. 21.51 crores, the Tribunal found that no incriminating material was discovered during the search action that indicated the compensation paid was not genuine. The statement recorded under Section 131, which formed the basis for the AO's findings, was taken after the search concluded. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 76,55,000/- on account of cash deposits was also made without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was already completed under Section 153C, and the subsequent additions under Section 153A were based on post-search inquiries and information gathered during assessment proceedings, not on search findings. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that in cases of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the approval for the assessment under Section 153A was obtained mechanically. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A were quashed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit all necessary documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the additions for undisclosed transactions should be limited to the peak balance in the account for each year. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to recalculate the peak balance, provide credit for income declared under IDS 2016, and allow telescoping benefit for A.Y. 2015-16.
The Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148 dated 05.04.2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16. This decision was based on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's ruling in Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma, which relied on the Supreme Court's concession that all notices under Section 148 issued after 01.04.2021 for Assessment Year 2015-16 should be dropped. Consequently, other grounds of appeal became academic and were dismissed unadjudicated.
The Assessing Officer initially initiated reassessment for cash deposits, which were later explained satisfactorily by the Assessee. However, the AO then disallowed the Section 80P deduction on the ground that the ITR was not filed under Section 139(1). Following the Bombay High Court decision in CIT Vs. Jet Airways Ltd., the Tribunal held that the AO is precluded from making additions on new issues when the original ground for reassessment is satisfied, without a fresh notice. The amendment to Section 80AC, making ITR filing mandatory for Section 80P deduction, was not applicable for AY 2016-17.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee had not explicitly requested for cross-examination of a key witness, but allowed the opportunity to be granted by the AO. The quantum addition and consequential penalty were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had provided supporting documents for its purchases and that statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A of the IT Act do not have conclusive evidentiary value on their own.
The Tribunal held that statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act do not have evidentiary value. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation to explain the transactions, and the addition was solely based on the survey statement.
The Tribunal held that while the initial denial of exemption u/s 11 was on account of non-filing of Form 10B, the claim for exemption u/s 10(23C) was not tenable in the absence of prior registration. However, considering the gross receipts were less than Rs. 1 crore and a similar claim was allowed for AY 2019-20, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and to allow the claim if applicable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee had not explicitly requested for cross-examination of a key witness, but allowed the opportunity to be granted by the AO. The quantum addition and consequential penalty were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove that the service providers actually rendered services for the commission paid. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested not to press the legal issues concerning the initiation of reassessment proceedings (Grounds 1, 2, and 4). Therefore, these grounds were dismissed as not pressed. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal observed that the additions were made on account of cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee had opted for IDS, 2016, and offered income for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16. The Tribunal found that the ledger account with Shri Renukamata Multistate Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. showed regular deposits and withdrawals, indicating cash inflow and outflow in the course of business. It is consistently held that in such circumstances, addition can be made for the peak balance. For AY 2014-15, the matter was restored to the AO to calculate the peak balance and give credit for income declared under IDS, 2016. For AY 2015-16, a similar exercise of calculating peak credit was directed, with the assessee deserving telescoping benefit of the AY 2014-15 peak credit and the benefit of income declared under IDS, 2016. The grounds of appeal on merits were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rightly invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a charitable trust, invested Rs. 32,75,000/- in Prabodh Artha Sanchay, a partnership firm where its trustee had a substantial interest. This investment was not in the modes prescribed under Section 11(5) and was in violation of Section 13(2)(h) as it was invested in a concern where a person referred to in sub-section (3) has a substantial interest. The AO failed to apply the correct law by allowing exemption under Section 11 on this income. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Audyogik Shikshan Mandal, which held that when income is not exempted under Section 11 read with Section 13, tax shall be levied on the relevant income at the Maximum Marginal Rate. Therefore, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was unaware of notices due to shifting abroad and had assigned return filing to a friend. Considering these facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back, directing the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest under section 14A of the Act amounting to ₹28,78,790 was uncalled for. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT (Large Taxpayer Unit) vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., the Tribunal observed that the assessee possessed substantial interest-free funds (approximately ₹20.30 crore as of 31/03/2013, increasing to ₹22.07 crore as of 31/03/2014) which were sufficient to cover its investments (approximately ₹33.33 crore as of 31/03/2013 and ₹5.27 crore as of 31/03/2014). The Tribunal noted the absence of any specific observation by the AO that interest-bearing funds were used for making investments yielding exempt income. Therefore, it was presumed that interest-free funds were utilized for such investments. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding to this extent and deleted the disallowance of ₹28,78,790. The remaining disallowance of ₹2,87,590 was sustained. The grounds of appeal were partly allowed.
The tribunal held that the restriction of TDS credit by the CPC was erroneous. Since the CIT(A) had restored the matter to the AO for verification and allowance of full credit, the Revenue's appeal had no merit.
The tribunal held that the restriction of TDS credit by the CPC was erroneous. Since the CIT(A) had restored the matter to the AO for verification and allowance of full credit, the Revenue's appeal had no merit.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was unaware of notices due to shifting abroad and had assigned return filing to a friend. Considering these facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back, directing the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The grounds relating to merit were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The grounds relating to merit were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The grounds relating to merit were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The grounds relating to merit were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided. The issue of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 46,00,000/- was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The tribunal held that the restriction of TDS credit by the CPC was erroneous. Since the CIT(A) had restored the matter to the AO for verification and allowance of full credit, the Revenue's appeal had no merit.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and provided no contrary material, the order of the Ld. CIT(E) upholding the rejection was justified. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The grounds relating to merit were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without seeking a remand report or allowing the Assessing Officer to verify the additional documents. Consequently, the case is remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate the cost of acquisition and re-decide the issue as per law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had his books of accounts audited and disclosed the income in the audit report, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. While the assessee faulted in furnishing the return due to family casualty, a penalty for non-furnishing was already imposed under Section 271F. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that there was no misreporting.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee is eligible to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the return of income was filed within the time limit stipulated under Section 139(4). This decision is supported by a CBDT circular dated 23.04.2019, the amended provisions of Section 12A(1)(ba), and previous coordinate bench decisions. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and directed the assessing officer to allow the Section 11 benefit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the ex-parte nature of the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC due to non-compliance with notices sent to incorrect email addresses, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma, quashed the notice issued under section 148. Since the issue of the notice was quashed, all other grounds became academic.
Citing the Bombay High Court's ruling that a CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution but must decide it on merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and to decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's previous regular approval was granted on 21.11.2024, making it practically impossible to file for renewal before the stipulated deadline of 30.09.2024. Following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing reasonable cause and a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the appellant's application for registration, providing a fair opportunity to present details.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding on the merits, which is contrary to Section 250(6). The Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the matter to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue on merits by passing a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on its merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, stating that the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate the claimed agricultural income, rendering it implausible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient and reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay and that the assessee would not gain by delaying the filing. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 had allowed the assessee's appeal on identical facts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant an opportunity to the assessee to present necessary documents. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P deduction or the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the matter was remanded. The operative direction was to remand the case for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that while delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merit.
The Tribunal found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing appeals, emphasizing that substantial justice outweighs procedural delays. It condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, remanding the matters back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing reasonable cause and a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the appellant's application for registration, providing a fair opportunity to present details.
The Tribunal found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing appeals, emphasizing that substantial justice outweighs procedural delays. It condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, remanding the matters back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that while delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merit.
The Tribunal noted that in the case of the assessee's brother, similar land was treated as agricultural and not a capital asset. Considering the assessee is an illiterate farmer and the CIT(A) rejected evidence on technical grounds, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to provide a final opportunity to the assessee to submit requisite details and decide the issue on facts and law after providing a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied credit for TCS that was actually collected from them, even if the deductor failed to deposit it with the government. Relying on Section 205 of the IT Act and a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant credit for the TCS.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide reasonable time to the appellant to respond to the notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matters for fresh consideration.