Loading ITAT cases…
59 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the 38-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the quantum assessment order has been restored to the AO's file, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is also restored to the AO for fresh consideration, ensuring the appellant is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were gift by book entries and not cash gifts, and no funds were transferred. The creditworthiness of the donors was not doubted, and the sums were not liable to tax as income from other sources. The grounds regarding additional evidence were dismissed as no new evidence was produced during appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately proved the identity of lenders, the genuineness of loan transactions through banking records, and demonstrated repayment of loans. The AO's objection regarding credit entries before loan transfer was not sufficient to doubt creditworthiness.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, specifically the incorrect communication of notices. Therefore, the delay was condoned. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require a sufficient opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing this opportunity and also failed to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the application should not be dismissed solely on grounds of delay of 41 days without considering the merits. Principles of natural justice require adequate opportunity to be heard. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was consistently non-cooperative and failed to provide necessary details to the lower authorities. However, considering the contention that sundry creditors were advances from customers, supported by audited accounts, and the principle of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified as the AO had tangible material to believe income had escaped assessment. Regarding the addition, while the assessee's business activity was accepted, the profit was estimated at 15% of the turnover instead of the declared 8%, leading to an adjusted addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case on merit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to lack of proper communication and opportunity of hearing. It was held that principles of natural justice require a party to be given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's unawareness of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s ex-parte order violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000.
The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was justified as the assessee failed to disclose details of bank accounts and cash/credit entries, the addition of the entire amount was excessive. Citing precedents, the Tribunal stated that only a reasonable profit element should be taxed for unaccounted business transactions or collection activities.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in disallowing the entire purchases without rejecting the assessee's books of account. While the CIT(A)'s restriction to 0.25% was not fully upheld, the Tribunal directed a disallowance of 2% of the impugned purchases as fair and reasonable.
The Departmental Representative for the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed the order without effectively hearing the appellant, as only one notice was issued and the submitted documents were not considered. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal observed that the AO's disallowance of development expenses was based on assumptions without independent verification. The CIT(A) partly allowed the claim, allowing post-purchase expenses but disallowing pre-purchase expenses. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh verification.
The CIT(A) set aside the AO's order and restored it to the AO for fresh assessment, citing a proviso that allows for this when an assessment order is made under section 144 of the Act. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, with a clerical error mentioning section 144. Therefore, the proviso to section 251(1) was not applicable.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not properly present their case before the lower authorities, resulting in ex-parte orders. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order in the interest of justice and natural principles of fairness, allowing for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance, which was submitted to be neither deliberate nor intentional. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the amount in question was a capital contribution towards the partnership firm for a commercial purpose (facilitating a bank loan) and not a loan or advance. Therefore, it was not covered under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Consequently, no TDS was deductible, and the assessee could not be treated as being in default.
The Tribunal held that the impugned payments were not unexplained expenditure but should be treated as business income. The addition was confined to the profit element, estimated at 15% of Rs. 9,16,800/-, which amounts to Rs. 1,37,520/-. Section 115BBE was not applicable for AY 2017-18.
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO, stating that the stamp value on the date of agreement was higher than the agreement value. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the evidence and submissions provided by the assessee and without providing proper opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the land in question was indeed agricultural land and not a capital asset as per Section 2(14) of the Act. The sale did not constitute a business transaction as the land was not converted or developed for non-agricultural purposes prior to sale.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued a deficiency letter which was reportedly responded to by the appellant, contrary to the CIT(A)'s observation of no response. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submission of details in the ITBA portal and the Revenue's inability to controvert the claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted an additional ground challenging the validity of the penalty notice. Since this ground was not adjudicated by the CIT(A), the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, stating it was based on tangible material and not a mere change of opinion. However, it directed that only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, stating it was based on tangible material and not a mere change of opinion. However, it directed that only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for both labour expenses and unsecured loans. The Tribunal noted that Sadhani Brothers did not implicate the assessee, and the loans were repaid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for both labour expenses and unsecured loans. The Tribunal noted that Sadhani Brothers did not implicate the assessee, and the loans were repaid.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the revenue failed to establish the existence of unrecorded investment by the appellant in the relevant financial year. Crucially, the seized material was from a third party, the assessee's name did not appear in the entries, and the purchase date was later than the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of Section 35(2AB) should have been restricted to Rs. 12,42,434/-, being 50% of the unallowed revenue expenditure. The remaining revenue expenditure of Rs. 24,84,868/- was allowable under Section 35(1)(i). For the addition under Section 14A, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not earned any exempt income, and following various High Court decisions, the disallowance was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot exercise revision jurisdiction by merely alleging absence of inquiry without pointing out specific defects in the AO's order or the assessee's submissions. The AO had accepted the returned income after considering the assessee's submissions and documents.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the Revenue's appeal was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 60 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on foreign exchange gain, finding it to be notional and capital in nature, not taxable. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of USFDA expenses, considering them business expenditure. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and the provided calculations. It was found that the tax effect of Rs.30,62,301/- in the Revenue's appeal is indeed less than the Rs.60 lakh limit specified by the CBDT Circular for filing appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on foreign exchange gain, finding it to be notional and capital in nature, not taxable. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of USFDA expenses, considering them business expenditure. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot exercise revisionary jurisdiction by merely alleging absence of inquiry without pointing out specific defects in the AO's order or the assessee's submissions. The AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee's returned income.
The tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. It was noted that the tax effect was less than Rs.60 lakh and the case did not fall under any exemptions mentioned in the relevant circular. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee-trust was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing by the Ld. CIT(E) before passing the order. It emphasized the principle of 'audi alteram partem', which mandates that parties are entitled to a fair hearing and should not be condemned unheard. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT-DR did not object to remitting the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for passing a fresh order in accordance with the law. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to provide an adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant-trust, and the trust was permitted to file any other relevant information or evidence in support of its application. The grounds of appeal were treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the AO incorrectly treated cash deposits as unexplained income when the turnover was declared under presumptive taxation (Section 44AD). However, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate income at 15% on the impugned deposit, restricting the addition. Regarding unsecured loans, while the assessee failed to provide evidence, the Tribunal noted that the revised addition for cash deposits would cover this amount.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. On the primary issue of the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- under section 69B, the Tribunal found that the AO had made the addition by extrapolating an amount of Rs.1,18,59,000/- reflected in a diary pertaining to Shri Maganbhai Kathrotiya. However, the Tribunal noted that the impounded document clearly mentioned 'Parat Aavel' (amount received back) and 'Kul Rakam' (total amount), not cash payment. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that this indicated the amount was received back and not paid as on-money. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the agreements for the purchase of land from the six parties were executed on 29.04.2015, and cheque payments were made in FY 2015-16 (AY 2016-17). Since the entire land acquisition was accounted for in AY 2016-17, making the addition in AY 2015-16 was unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had declared Rs.1.5 crore as net on-money profit from the project under IDS-2016, suggesting any unaccounted investment for land purchase was already considered. Regarding section 292C, the Tribunal noted it was not applicable as the material was recovered from a third person, and even if applicable, the presumption is rebuttable. The 'Human Probability Test' was also satisfied as transactions were documented, through banking channels, reflected in books, and explained with evidence. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) because the assessee was pursuing its remedy for rectification. The matter was restored to the Ld.CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, finding that the delay was not deliberate and that preferring substantial justice over technical considerations was appropriate. Regarding the CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A), leading to an ex parte order. However, the Tribunal held that principles of natural justice and fair play mandate granting a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the affected party. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and to furnish explanations and relevant documents. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the PCIT did not decide the issue on merit but rather passed the order to keep the issue alive, pending further appeals. The Tribunal observed that a similar issue in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 was allowed by the ITAT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s orders were passed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeals was not intentional and that substantial justice would be served by providing another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the PCIT did not decide the issue on merit but rather passed the order to keep the issue alive, pending further appeals. The Tribunal observed that a similar issue in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 was allowed by the ITAT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for both assessees, citing substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessees.