Loading ITAT cases…
111 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in retaining the addition by estimating profit at 16% of the 'on-money' receipt, deeming it excessive. It also noted the Ld. CIT(A)'s error in directing the AO to tax unaccounted profit in the year of sale deed execution instead of the year of 'on-money' receipt, which contradicts accounting principles for real estate developers.
The tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in retaining the addition by estimating profit at 16% of the 'on-money' receipt, deeming it excessive. It also noted the Ld. CIT(A)'s error in directing the AO to tax unaccounted profit in the year of sale deed execution instead of the year of 'on-money' receipt, which contradicts accounting principles for real estate developers.
The Tribunal addressed the issues by referring to a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own group case, M/s. R K Infralink LLP. Regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 97,30,000/- made on account of alleged cash loans/advances, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted telescoping benefit. The CIT(A) had observed that the estimated unaccounted profit (confirmed at 16% of 'on-money' receipt) was more than the cash advanced. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of telescoping. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion and upheld the deletion of this addition, thereby dismissing the Revenue's ground related to it. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this specific ground (ground No. 3 in ITA No. 657/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19) was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that the assessee's appeals were partly allowed to the extent indicated, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal addressed the issues by referring to a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own group case, M/s. R K Infralink LLP. Regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 97,30,000/- made on account of alleged cash loans/advances, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted telescoping benefit. The CIT(A) had observed that the estimated unaccounted profit (confirmed at 16% of 'on-money' receipt) was more than the cash advanced. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of telescoping. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion and upheld the deletion of this addition, thereby dismissing the Revenue's ground related to it. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this specific ground (ground No. 3 in ITA No. 657/RJT/2024 for AY 2018-19) was dismissed. The Tribunal stated that the assessee's appeals were partly allowed to the extent indicated, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in retaining the addition by estimating profit at 16% of the 'on-money' receipt, deeming it excessive. It also noted the Ld. CIT(A)'s error in directing the AO to tax unaccounted profit in the year of sale deed execution instead of the year of 'on-money' receipt, which contradicts accounting principles for real estate developers.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was common to all appeals. The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning this issue. Regarding the additions made on account of 'on-money' receipts, the Tribunal, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Shivalik Buildwell Pvt Ltd, along with the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in M/s D R. Construction, held that unaccounted profit estimated on 'on-money' receipt is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed or when significant risk and rewards are transferred to the buyer. Since the assessee followed a revenue recognition method on the execution of the sale deed, only the 'on-money' receipt computed in the present case would be taxable in the year of sale deed execution, not when 'on-money' was received. The Tribunal also noted that ICDS-II was not applicable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue concerning these additions were dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed other grounds raised by the Revenue, specifically mentioning grounds raised in ITA No. 794/RJT/2024, ITA No. 795/RJT/2024, ITA No. 796/RJT/2024, and IT(ss) No. 24/RJT/2024, by respectfully following the binding judgment in the assessee's own case. The appeals filed by the Assessee were partly allowed to the extent indicated, while all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and, with no objection from the Departmental Representative, treated the appeal as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal approach for justice. It further held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to a mechanical and borrowed satisfaction from the approving authority, quashing the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(d) was time-barred, as it was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The ITAT found that the approval required under Section 151 for initiating reassessment proceedings was neither manually nor digitally signed. Consequently, the tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio and quashed the reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned from deposits with co-operative banks is allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. This decision was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that the second appellate order was void ab initio as the appeal for the same assessment year had already been decided by the jurisdictional CIT(A). The subsequent order constituted double adjudication and a jurisdictional error due to the appeal not being pending at the time of transfer to the faceless system.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C was not applied in the correct spirit of law, as the AO failed to refer the matter to a DVO despite the assessee's request. The case was remanded back to the AO to obtain a DVO report and re-adjudicate the matter after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the genuineness of share capital and unsecured loans, especially concerning the 'source of the source' as required by the amended provisions of Section 68. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned from deposits with co-operative banks is allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. This decision was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and the jurisdictional High Court.
The ITAT condoned the 16-day delay, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations and finding the assessee's reasons for delay convincing. The tribunal restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal as per Section 250(6) and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
The tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the rejection order. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing details of the loan, confirmation from the lender, PAN, and proof of repayment via account payee check, which was also recorded in audited books. The affidavit from BCCL's director affirming the genuineness of the transaction further supported the assessee's claim. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not authorized to levy penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act, as only the Assessing Officer has this power. Furthermore, since the quantum of addition was deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty imposed on that addition had no foundation to stand.
The Tribunal held that the reopening notice issued under Section 148A(b) was time-barred as it was issued after the expiry of the limitation period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not authorized to levy penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act, as only the Assessing Officer has this power. Furthermore, since the quantum of addition was deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty imposed on that addition had no foundation to stand.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, by collecting milk from farmers and supplying it to a federal cooperative society, functions as a primary cooperative society and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(b). It also held that interest and dividend income derived from investments with other cooperative societies are deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) for AY 2015-16 was time-barred, as it was issued after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not authorized to levy penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act, as only the Assessing Officer has this power. Furthermore, since the quantum of addition was deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty imposed on that addition had no foundation to stand.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not authorized to levy penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act, as only the Assessing Officer has this power. Furthermore, since the quantum of addition was deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty imposed on that addition had no foundation to stand.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided substantial documents and evidences, including regular books of accounts maintained for over three decades. While acknowledging some inconsistencies, the Tribunal disallowed only 10% of the disputed amount (Rs. 84,650) to account for these inconsistencies, deleting the remaining addition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not present their case before the lower authorities and that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6). To ensure natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and the AO to pass a speaking order after providing a sufficient hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was beyond the surviving period, making it time-barred and void ab initio. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistake of their accountant. Subsequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment notices under Section 148 as they were issued beyond the 'surviving time' allowed by Supreme Court judgments.
The tribunal held that the PCIT correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer failed to conduct adequate inquiries regarding brokerage expenses and indexed cost of improvement. The assessee's legal heir also failed to submit supporting documentary evidence during the revision proceedings. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000 on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistake of their accountant. Subsequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment notices under Section 148 as they were issued beyond the 'surviving time' allowed by Supreme Court judgments.
The tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without discussing the case on merits, violating principles of natural justice. It remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee for non-compliance.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The tribunal condoned the 542-day delay in filing the appeal, finding mitigating circumstances. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte and non-speaking order, remitting the matter back for de novo adjudication to ensure the assessee receives a fair opportunity to be heard and a speaking order is passed.
The tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.