Loading ITAT cases…
591 tribunal orders from the Ranchi bench in 2025.
Showing 40 of 591 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to the absence of valid service of notice under Section 148 on the assessee, who was not registered on the e-filing portal and did not receive physical notice. Furthermore, on merits, it found that the property transfer was a gift between husband and wife, without monetary consideration, and therefore, the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding the share capital under Section 68 by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. It also found the rebate to customers was a legitimate business expenditure based on commercial expediency and supported by evidence, thereby affirming the deletion of both additions.
The Tribunal held that two different GP rates (2.70% on declared sales and 25% on unaccounted purchases) cannot be simultaneously applied for the same assessee and assessment year when income is estimated. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to ₹ 2,40,680/- by consistently applying the 2.70% GP rate to the unaccounted purchases. The Tribunal also ruled that Section 115BBE is not applicable when income is assessed on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal held that two different GP rates (2.70% on declared sales and 25% on unaccounted purchases) cannot be simultaneously applied for the same assessee and assessment year when income is estimated. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to ₹ 2,40,680/- by consistently applying the 2.70% GP rate to the unaccounted purchases. The Tribunal also ruled that Section 115BBE is not applicable when income is assessed on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal found that the initial premise of the Assessing Officer regarding the amount of deposit was factually incorrect. It agreed with the CIT(A) on the correct deposit amount and also accepted that the deposits represented business receipts, warranting an estimation of income.
The Tribunal ruled that the 300 grams of gold found was within the 400-gram limit allowed for a married woman under CBDT Instruction No. 1916, regardless of its form. It further found the quantity of silver to be reasonable and acknowledged that substantial jewellery had been disclosed in prior returns. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the lower authorities for both gold and silver were unsustainable and ordered their deletion.
The Tribunal observed that the appeal's tax effect was below the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 and did not qualify for any exception. On merits, the Tribunal found that the alleged escaped income was already part of the assessee's declared profit, making a separate addition a case of impermissible double taxation. Since the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account under Section 145 and the CIT(A) found no infirmity, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed ex parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) based the addition on the DVO's valuation as of the sale/registration date, overlooking the agreement date of 28.06.2010 when part consideration was paid. The Tribunal held that the valuation for section 56(2)(x) should be determined as of the agreement date. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh valuation and order based on the agreement date.
The Tribunal ruled that since the entire cash was already assessed in the hands of another company, as accepted by the Revenue, the addition made in the assessee's hands amounted to impermissible double taxation. It held that once ownership is determined and accepted, the same income cannot be assessed twice. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) incorrectly dismissed the appeal on the technical ground of delay, rather than addressing the substantive merits. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a fair opportunity.
The CIT(A) deleted all the additions, finding that the profit from derivative transactions was genuine and already offered for tax, the commission was not substantiated, and the unsecured loans were supported by sufficient documentation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It held that ₹25,11,000/- of the total addition, which originated from bank transfers, could not be treated as undisclosed and was effectively deleted. For the remaining cash deposit of ₹53,50,000/-, the matter was remanded back to the AO to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the source of these cash deposits.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed ex parte without granting the assessee sufficient opportunity to present its case. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This decision applies to appeals for both AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 due to identical facts and issues.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed ex parte without granting the assessee sufficient opportunity to present its case. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This decision applies to appeals for both AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 due to identical facts and issues.
In the interest of justice, the tribunal decided to restore the issues in the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 237 days in filing the appeal. On merits, it held that the assessee failed to prove the source of the Rs. 3 lakhs, as they could neither show the source of professional receipts nor provide issued receipts. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to submit details to lower authorities, decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This decision was made in the interest of justice, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity to be heard and present details afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the 133-day delay. Recognizing the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide substantiating details to both lower authorities, the Tribunal restored all issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, ensuring the assessee is granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored all issues in the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard before passing a fresh order. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to submit details to both lower authorities. In the interest of justice, it restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal restored the issues in all three appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, considering the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide details to lower authorities. The AO is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard to explain the transactions.
The Tribunal restored the issues in all three appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, considering the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide details to lower authorities. The AO is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard to explain the transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the AO was unduly liberal in applying the peak credit method instead of computing income on the higher actual turnover under Section 44AD. However, as the appeal was filed by the assessee and the AO's method was favorable to them, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere and upheld the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the issues in appeal are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO is directed to grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to present the necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as the assessee proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan received through banking channels. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal also held that the addition under Section 69A for capital introduction from cash in hand was invalid since the cash balance was duly reflected in the audited balance sheet of the previous year and the AO relied on mere suspicion. Both additions were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide details to the authorities below, restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal, following a precedent from a co-ordinate bench, held that the exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) cannot be denied merely because the return of income was filed belatedly in response to a notice under section 148, rather than within the time prescribed under section 139(1) or 139(4C). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption.
Given the assessee's non-cooperation and lack of substantiated details, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the issues in all three appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, considering the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide details to lower authorities. The AO is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard to explain the transactions.
The Tribunal observed that the revenue failed to produce evidence of any show cause notice being issued to the assessee before the adjustments were made in the intimation under Section 143(1). Reiterating that a show cause notice is compulsory before making adjustments under Section 143(1) of the Act, the Tribunal quashed the intimation and the consequent order passed by the CIT(A) due to this procedural lapse.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO, instructing to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to provide details and prove the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the creditors. This decision was made because the assessee had not initially provided sufficient details to the AO.
The Tribunal observed that the revenue failed to produce evidence of any show cause notice being issued to the assessee before the adjustments were made in the intimation under Section 143(1). Reiterating that a show cause notice is compulsory before making adjustments under Section 143(1) of the Act, the Tribunal quashed the intimation and the consequent order passed by the CIT(A) due to this procedural lapse.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the application for withdrawal. Recognizing that the matter had already been remanded for de novo adjudication by a previous tribunal order, the ITAT allowed the withdrawal. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that disallowing expenditures while treating receipts as income is impermissible. If exemption is denied, expenditures related to business income should be allowed.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below Rs.60 lakhs. Citing Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, the Tribunal ruled that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to this low tax effect and consequently dismissed it.
The Tribunal condoned the 19-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, and noting no compliance before lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that while the transactions dated back to 2013, the registration occurred in AY 2017-18, and the assessee had failed to provide details to the AO. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that denying an exemption under Section 10(23C) and taxing gross receipts is not an 'arithmetical mistake' permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act. Such an action would necessitate computing the income as 'business income' after preparing financial statements, which was not done. Therefore, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was quashed as being contrary to the provisions of the Act.