Loading ITAT cases…
208 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred as it was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court directions in the Rajeev Bansal case. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was obtained from the incorrect authority, violating Section 151(ii) of the Act. The amendment to Section 151 by the Finance Act, 2023, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, noting the AO's initial calculation of zero tax liability led to the assessee's belief that no appeal was necessary. The Tribunal also found the assessment order flawed due to the incorrect residential status of the assessee and the need to examine additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred as it was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court directions in the Rajeev Bansal case. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that there cannot be double taxation on the same sale of land for two different assessment years. The assessee cannot be denied the refund of taxes paid for AY 2013-14 on technical grounds, especially when the capital gains were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme for AY 2012-13.
The Tribunal held that the petrol and diesel expenses claimed were reasonable considering the firm's turnover and the nature of its business involving site supervision at various locations. Therefore, the addition made on this account was liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the delay. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations when there is no intentional delay. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the investment in the immovable property, paid for by partners and later cancelled, cannot be treated as unexplained investment in the hands of the partnership firm. Any doubt regarding the source of funds with individual partners should be investigated in their respective assessments.
The Tribunal held that a subsequent notification enhanced the exemption limit for leave encashment to Rs. 25,00,000 retrospectively. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the higher exemption.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order to set aside the ex-parte assessment and restore it to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was to allow the assessee a proper opportunity to present her case, considering the amended provisions of Section 251(1)(a).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had repaid the loans, and the Revenue could not controvert this fact. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal found the additions unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's reply to the show cause notice was submitted after the assessment order was passed, and therefore, it could not be considered by the AO. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5000/- to the PM Relief Fund and to conclude the hearing before the CIT(A) without seeking any adjournments.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5000/- to the PM Relief Fund and to conclude the hearing before the CIT(A) without seeking any adjournments.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty, stating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are based purely on estimation or guesswork.
The Tribunal followed its previous decisions in the assessee's own case for other assessment years and directed the AO to apply a Gross Profit (GP) addition of 9% of total purchases.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh. The assessee was directed to provide explanations for the genuineness of transactions without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty under Section 270A, following a coordinate bench's decision that it was not imposable in similar circumstances. Similarly, the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was deleted, as the assessee had a bonafide belief of compliance and relied on a coordinate bench's ruling.
The Tribunal held that based on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT Vs Ashwinkumar Arban Co Operative Society Ltd., interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Section 80P(4) does not disentitle the assessee from claiming this deduction.
The Tribunal found that the penalty was imposed without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for valuation under Rule 11UA(2)(a) (NAV method), a separate valuation report from an independent valuer is not required, and the audited balance sheet is sufficient. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in invoking Section 263. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal ruled that interest and dividend income from a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as long as the payer is a registered cooperative society. The assessment order allowing the deduction was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of ₹29.00 lacs as bogus purchases. It held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions and that the reliance on net profit was not acceptable when purchases were treated as bogus.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty under Section 270A, following a coordinate bench's decision that it was not imposable in similar circumstances. Similarly, the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was deleted, as the assessee had a bonafide belief of compliance and relied on a coordinate bench's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was time-barred as it was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that notices issued for AY 2015-16 on or after April 1, 2021, are liable to be dropped as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as being barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was to consider the subsequent grant of 12A/12AB registration and to examine the fulfillment of other statutory conditions for 80G approval.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was to consider the subsequent grant of 12A/12AB registration and other statutory conditions.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was to consider the subsequent grant of 12A/12AB registration and to examine if other statutory conditions for 80G(5) approval were met.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide sufficient opportunities to the assessee and that selecting the wrong clause/code was a procedural mistake, not a substantive one. The Tribunal relied on previous ITAT decisions that treated such errors as rectifiable.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty, was subsequently revised by the AO to 'Nil' income, the penalty order became void ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessee and that the rejection was primarily due to non-compliance. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of awareness of legal provisions. It held that the ex-gratia receipts under the BSNL VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of awareness of legal provisions. It held that the ex-gratia receipts under the BSNL VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without serving notice by post on non-compliance to e-notices. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication with an opportunity of hearing for the assessee.
The Tribunal found no mention of notice being served to the assessee regarding the delay before the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on the delay and merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the legal position. It held that the VRS compensation received by BSNL employees is in the nature of retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the legal position. It held that the VRS compensation received by BSNL employees is in the nature of retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's bona fide lack of awareness of the legal position. On merits, following various ITAT decisions, the Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS, 2019, is in the nature of retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits and that the assessee's inability to provide details was due to the alleged fraudulent actions of their former Chartered Accountant. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits and that the assessee's inability to provide details was due to the alleged fraudulent actions of their former Chartered Accountant. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's bona fide lack of awareness of the legal position. On merits, following various ITAT decisions, the Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS, 2019, is in the nature of retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, which stated that notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 are to be dropped.
The Tribunal held that notices issued for AY 2015-16 after April 1, 2021, are invalid based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents. Therefore, the assessment order is quashed, and the delay in filing the first appeal is condoned.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application with only one opportunity violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications was primarily due to non-compliance, but the assessee was given insufficient opportunities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the grant of 80G approval is consequential to 12A/12AB registration. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the 80G application after considering the outcome of the pending 12A/12AB application.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a proper and effective opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications was primarily due to non-compliance, but the assessee was given insufficient opportunities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee.