Loading ITAT cases…
67 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted the CIT(E)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking. Observing that principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to be heard, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.
The tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for both the LTCG claim and the source of investment in immovable property. The Assessing Officer had not properly considered these evidences.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which is the revised monetary limit for appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue.
The tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the permissible time limit under Section 149(2) of the Income Tax Act, as the escaped income of Rs. 21,73,000/- was below the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- required for reopening after three years. Furthermore, the sanction for reopening was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), which is required when more than three years have elapsed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without examining the additional evidences provided by the assessee or calling for a remand report from the AO, thereby violating natural justice and Rule 46A. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, granting the assessee liberty to produce sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal found that the trust's objects were for general public benefit and no expenses were incurred solely for the Jain community, and no arbitration services were actually provided. However, noting that the assessee failed to submit comprehensive documentary evidence during the original proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remitted both issues back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee a further opportunity to furnish all required documents and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted all necessary documents and explanations to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view and accepted the explanation. The Tribunal noted that the appeal effect proceedings involved an addition on account of unsecured loans, which was connected to the cash deposits, leading to a double addition. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction invoked by the PCIT under section 263 was considered bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) issued notices, the details of service were not clear. The assessee was non-cooperative throughout the proceedings. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that 'Bhil-Meena/Meena' is defined as a Scheduled Tribe by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. It directed the Ld. CIT(E) to re-examine the government notification and ascertain if the assessee-trust falls within the definition of Scheduled Tribes. If confirmed, the approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) should be granted. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(E) for re-adjudication after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence, including sale deeds and cash flow statements, to substantiate the source of the cash deposit. The AO had not properly examined or refuted these evidences. While acknowledging that not all the cash deposit might be entirely explained and some could be self-serving, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the deposited amount.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The assessee's failure to provide bank statements during original and subsequent proceedings supported this.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation report was not prepared in accordance with the guidelines issued by the ICAI and relied on arbitrary projections. The Assessing Officer's adoption of the Net Asset Value (NAV) method was considered fair.
The Tribunal perused the application for withdrawal and noted that it was duly signed by the assessee. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the rejection of the 80G registration was based on a misunderstanding of the assessee's activities, likely due to a punching error. The Tribunal noted the charitable nature of the organization and the approval of its affiliated body for 80G registration.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's reasons for invoking Section 263 were sustainable, finding the AO's order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order and dismissed the assessee's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's reasons for invoking Section 263 were sustainable, finding the AO's order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order and dismissed the assessee's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's reasons for invoking Section 263 were sustainable, finding the AO's order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order and dismissed the assessee's appeals.