Loading ITAT cases…
168 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision in M/s Central Coalfields Limited, held that the seller (assessee) is not responsible for verifying Form 27C once it is duly filled and signed by the purchaser. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the Assessing Officer's orders under section 206C for the financial years 2012-2013 to 2016-2017, finding no substantial question of law. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 1,51,63,478/- due to the assessee's lack of proper submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand this specific unaddressed issue back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to present all submissions. All connected appeals for other assessment years were also allowed for statistical purposes, applying the same principle.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delays in filing the appeals, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities like limitation. Consequently, the issues in both appeals were restored to the file of the JCIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a directive to grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the 161-day delay, acknowledging the communication deficiency. It restored the assessment issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, conditional upon the assessee paying Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days. Failure to comply with this condition would lead to the CIT(A)'s order being confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A)'s order was an ex-parte dismissal without considering the merits. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for re-examination of the issues, directing the CIT(A) to afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who is also required to comply with notices.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and, in the interest of justice and fair play, remanded the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to afford sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal also stipulated that an ex-parte order could be passed by the CIT(A) if the assessee fails to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind, and in violation of statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's imprisonment constituted a valid reason for the delay in filing appeals before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) and restored the issues for all assessment years to the file of the JCIT(A)/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's imprisonment constituted a valid reason for the delay in filing appeals before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) and restored the issues for all assessment years to the file of the JCIT(A)/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the issue of belated deposit of employee contributions to PF and ESI is no longer debatable, being settled by the Supreme Court's decision in *Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.* However, for a specific payment due on 15/07/2019, which the assessee claimed was paid on the same day, the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for verification. All other disallowances for belatedly paid PF and ESI contributions were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had made a case for the provision of reasons recorded and other connected documents, which had not been provided since 2016. Consequently, appeals in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, and in the case of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, where the issue of reopening was challenged, were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. This would be done after providing the assessee with copies of reasons recorded, certified ordersheets, and approval under Section 151, and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO was directed to consider any objections filed by the assessee against the reopening. For the remaining appeals concerning M/s Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. (AY 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) and Shri Anosh Ekka (AY 2010-2011), where additions related to share capital and secured loans were made, the Tribunal also restored these issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary examination, determine if the investments belonged to Shri Anosh Ekka, and provide justifiable reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that while deleted additions by the CIT(A) might be re-examined if linked to sustained additions, legal grounds raised by the assessee would be kept open. The orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals were set aside in their entirety.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had made a case for the provision of reasons recorded and other connected documents, which had not been provided since 2016. Consequently, appeals in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, and in the case of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, where the issue of reopening was challenged, were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. This would be done after providing the assessee with copies of reasons recorded, certified ordersheets, and approval under Section 151, and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO was directed to consider any objections filed by the assessee against the reopening. For the remaining appeals concerning M/s Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. (AY 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) and Shri Anosh Ekka (AY 2010-2011), where additions related to share capital and secured loans were made, the Tribunal also restored these issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary examination, determine if the investments belonged to Shri Anosh Ekka, and provide justifiable reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that while deleted additions by the CIT(A) might be re-examined if linked to sustained additions, legal grounds raised by the assessee would be kept open. The orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals were set aside in their entirety.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had made a case for the provision of reasons recorded and other connected documents, which had not been provided since 2016. Consequently, appeals in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, and in the case of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, where the issue of reopening was challenged, were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. This would be done after providing the assessee with copies of reasons recorded, certified ordersheets, and approval under Section 151, and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO was directed to consider any objections filed by the assessee against the reopening. For the remaining appeals concerning M/s Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. (AY 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) and Shri Anosh Ekka (AY 2010-2011), where additions related to share capital and secured loans were made, the Tribunal also restored these issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary examination, determine if the investments belonged to Shri Anosh Ekka, and provide justifiable reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that while deleted additions by the CIT(A) might be re-examined if linked to sustained additions, legal grounds raised by the assessee would be kept open. The orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals were set aside in their entirety.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had made a case for the provision of reasons recorded and other connected documents, which had not been provided since 2016. Consequently, appeals in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, and in the case of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, where the issue of reopening was challenged, were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. This would be done after providing the assessee with copies of reasons recorded, certified ordersheets, and approval under Section 151, and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO was directed to consider any objections filed by the assessee against the reopening. For the remaining appeals concerning M/s Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. (AY 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) and Shri Anosh Ekka (AY 2010-2011), where additions related to share capital and secured loans were made, the Tribunal also restored these issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary examination, determine if the investments belonged to Shri Anosh Ekka, and provide justifiable reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that while deleted additions by the CIT(A) might be re-examined if linked to sustained additions, legal grounds raised by the assessee would be kept open. The orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals were set aside in their entirety.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had made a case for the provision of reasons recorded and other connected documents, which had not been provided since 2016. Consequently, appeals in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, and in the case of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, where the issue of reopening was challenged, were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. This would be done after providing the assessee with copies of reasons recorded, certified ordersheets, and approval under Section 151, and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO was directed to consider any objections filed by the assessee against the reopening. For the remaining appeals concerning M/s Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. (AY 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) and Shri Anosh Ekka (AY 2010-2011), where additions related to share capital and secured loans were made, the Tribunal also restored these issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary examination, determine if the investments belonged to Shri Anosh Ekka, and provide justifiable reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that while deleted additions by the CIT(A) might be re-examined if linked to sustained additions, legal grounds raised by the assessee would be kept open. The orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals were set aside in their entirety.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had made a case for the provision of reasons recorded and other connected documents, which had not been provided since 2016. Consequently, appeals in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, and in the case of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, where the issue of reopening was challenged, were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. This would be done after providing the assessee with copies of reasons recorded, certified ordersheets, and approval under Section 151, and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO was directed to consider any objections filed by the assessee against the reopening. For the remaining appeals concerning M/s Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. (AY 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) and Shri Anosh Ekka (AY 2010-2011), where additions related to share capital and secured loans were made, the Tribunal also restored these issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary examination, determine if the investments belonged to Shri Anosh Ekka, and provide justifiable reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that while deleted additions by the CIT(A) might be re-examined if linked to sustained additions, legal grounds raised by the assessee would be kept open. The orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals were set aside in their entirety.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had made a case for the provision of reasons recorded and other connected documents, which had not been provided since 2016. Consequently, appeals in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, and in the case of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, where the issue of reopening was challenged, were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. This would be done after providing the assessee with copies of reasons recorded, certified ordersheets, and approval under Section 151, and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO was directed to consider any objections filed by the assessee against the reopening. For the remaining appeals concerning M/s Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. (AY 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) and Shri Anosh Ekka (AY 2010-2011), where additions related to share capital and secured loans were made, the Tribunal also restored these issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary examination, determine if the investments belonged to Shri Anosh Ekka, and provide justifiable reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that while deleted additions by the CIT(A) might be re-examined if linked to sustained additions, legal grounds raised by the assessee would be kept open. The orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals were set aside in their entirety.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had made a case for the provision of reasons recorded and other connected documents, which had not been provided since 2016. Consequently, appeals in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, and in the case of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, where the issue of reopening was challenged, were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. This would be done after providing the assessee with copies of reasons recorded, certified ordersheets, and approval under Section 151, and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO was directed to consider any objections filed by the assessee against the reopening. For the remaining appeals concerning M/s Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. (AY 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) and Shri Anosh Ekka (AY 2010-2011), where additions related to share capital and secured loans were made, the Tribunal also restored these issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary examination, determine if the investments belonged to Shri Anosh Ekka, and provide justifiable reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that while deleted additions by the CIT(A) might be re-examined if linked to sustained additions, legal grounds raised by the assessee would be kept open. The orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals were set aside in their entirety.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had made a case for the provision of reasons recorded and other connected documents, which had not been provided since 2016. Consequently, appeals in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, and in the case of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, where the issue of reopening was challenged, were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. This would be done after providing the assessee with copies of reasons recorded, certified ordersheets, and approval under Section 151, and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO was directed to consider any objections filed by the assessee against the reopening. For the remaining appeals concerning M/s Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. (AY 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) and Shri Anosh Ekka (AY 2010-2011), where additions related to share capital and secured loans were made, the Tribunal also restored these issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary examination, determine if the investments belonged to Shri Anosh Ekka, and provide justifiable reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that while deleted additions by the CIT(A) might be re-examined if linked to sustained additions, legal grounds raised by the assessee would be kept open. The orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals were set aside in their entirety.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the interest on the building fund and royalty, directing it to be allowed as expenditure in the year of payment. The revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection concerning the loss due to theft were dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had indeed submitted substantial documents, as evidenced by e-proceedings acknowledgment slips. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for readjudication of the registration and recognition issues, ensuring the assessee is granted adequate opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance of most expenses due to lack of substantiation. However, it directed the AO to allow prior period expenses in the year of payment and restored the issue of double-counted interest income to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the interest on the building fund and royalty, directing it to be allowed as expenditure in the year of payment. The revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection concerning the loss due to theft were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the additions for alleged bogus purchases were unsustainable as the assessee, a power trader, had accounted for the exact quantity purchased and sold, and the payments were made as per the seller's instructions. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of rental expenses, noting that recipients had offered income to tax and disallowing would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance of most expenses due to lack of substantiation. However, it directed the AO to allow prior period expenses in the year of payment and restored the issue of double-counted interest income to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had made a case for the provision of reasons recorded and other connected documents, which had not been provided since 2016. Consequently, appeals in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, and in the case of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, where the issue of reopening was challenged, were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. This would be done after providing the assessee with copies of reasons recorded, certified ordersheets, and approval under Section 151, and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO was directed to consider any objections filed by the assessee against the reopening. For the remaining appeals concerning M/s Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. (AY 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) and Shri Anosh Ekka (AY 2010-2011), where additions related to share capital and secured loans were made, the Tribunal also restored these issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary examination, determine if the investments belonged to Shri Anosh Ekka, and provide justifiable reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that while deleted additions by the CIT(A) might be re-examined if linked to sustained additions, legal grounds raised by the assessee would be kept open. The orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals were set aside in their entirety.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had made a case for the provision of reasons recorded and other connected documents, which had not been provided since 2016. Consequently, appeals in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, and in the case of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, where the issue of reopening was challenged, were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. This would be done after providing the assessee with copies of reasons recorded, certified ordersheets, and approval under Section 151, and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO was directed to consider any objections filed by the assessee against the reopening. For the remaining appeals concerning M/s Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. (AY 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) and Shri Anosh Ekka (AY 2010-2011), where additions related to share capital and secured loans were made, the Tribunal also restored these issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary examination, determine if the investments belonged to Shri Anosh Ekka, and provide justifiable reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that while deleted additions by the CIT(A) might be re-examined if linked to sustained additions, legal grounds raised by the assessee would be kept open. The orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals were set aside in their entirety.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's challenge on natural justice grounds, restored the matter to the Pr.CIT for readjudication. It directed the Pr.CIT to grant adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and advised that if email notices are not responded to, a physical notice should also be sent to ensure compliance with natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had made a case for the provision of reasons recorded and other connected documents, which had not been provided since 2016. Consequently, appeals in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, and in the case of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka for assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009, where the issue of reopening was challenged, were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. This would be done after providing the assessee with copies of reasons recorded, certified ordersheets, and approval under Section 151, and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The AO was directed to consider any objections filed by the assessee against the reopening. For the remaining appeals concerning M/s Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. (AY 2007-2008 to 2010-2011) and Shri Anosh Ekka (AY 2010-2011), where additions related to share capital and secured loans were made, the Tribunal also restored these issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was instructed to conduct necessary examination, determine if the investments belonged to Shri Anosh Ekka, and provide justifiable reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that while deleted additions by the CIT(A) might be re-examined if linked to sustained additions, legal grounds raised by the assessee would be kept open. The orders of the CIT(A) in all these appeals were set aside in their entirety.
The tribunal held that since the tax effect involved (below Rs. 60 lakhs) is below the monetary limit for filing appeals by the revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.9.2024, the revenue's appeal is not maintainable. It further clarified that the exception clause does not apply as the CIT(A) quashed the assessment on technical grounds (reopening) and not on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had indeed submitted substantial documents, as evidenced by e-proceedings acknowledgment slips. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for readjudication of the registration and recognition issues, ensuring the assessee is granted adequate opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal rejected both adjournment applications. It found that the CIT(A) incorrectly applied the Abhishar Buildwell principle, as incriminating material was indeed found during the search, which formed the basis for assessments under Section 153A. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were reversed, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, rejecting the finding that no incriminating material was found and stating that such material formed the basis of the assessment. Consequently, all issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s orders, rejecting the finding that no incriminating material was found and stating that such material formed the basis of the assessment. Consequently, all issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had raised new legal grounds before it that were not brought before the CIT(A). Applying the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored all issues in both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh readjudication of these legal grounds. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had raised new legal grounds before it that were not brought before the CIT(A). Applying the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored all issues in both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh readjudication of these legal grounds. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect involved in the appeal was indeed below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in the interest of justice. This decision was contingent on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days and cooperating fully with the Assessing Officer by furnishing all documents and avoiding unjustified adjournments.