Loading ITAT cases…
44 tribunal orders from the Agra bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 44 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 38,99,000 as unexplained money and Rs. 1,600 as interest income. It found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the nature and source of the cash deposits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided an affidavit from his brother stating the deposits were his and the assessee had no connection to them. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the file to the AO for verification of this additional evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding it reasonable and without infirmity. The Tribunal agreed that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest regarding the unexplained capital.
The CIT(A) correctly applied Section 50C as the assessee did not raise objections before the AO regarding the valuation or request a reference to the Valuation Officer. The assessee also failed to provide evidence to dispute the valuation.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without a mandatory DIN, and without fulfilling the exceptional circumstances outlined in CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF and ESI, if not remitted before the due date prescribed in the respective enactments, cannot be allowed as a deduction. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case has ruled that employee contributions to EPF/ESI must be deposited on or before the due date to be eligible for deduction. Therefore, belated payments are not deductible.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case has ruled that employee contributions to EPF/ESI must be deposited on or before the due date to be eligible for deduction. Therefore, belated payments are not deductible.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer. This was to allow for a fresh examination and determination of capital gains, considering the sale and purchase of capital assets.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) considered submissions and evidence not presented before the AO, which contravened Rule 46A. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry, verified documents, and made necessary verifications. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied by obtaining the audit report before the due date and submitting it during assessment. The failure to file the report by the due date was considered a reasonable cause due to no return being filed initially.
The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF and ESI are paid beyond the due dates specified in the relevant Acts, they are to be added back to the income of the assessee. This decision followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in his finding regarding the DVO's valuation. The DVO's valuation is not merely advisory and can override the valuation determined by the sub-registrar.
The Tribunal held that the note to the Tehsildar was not a certificate and the internet search by the Pr. CIT was not conclusive evidence. It found that the AO had made inquiries and taken a plausible view, thus setting aside the Pr. CIT's order.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the AO's reasons did not specify that the escaped income was likely to be Rs. 1 lac or more, which is a mandatory requirement for notices issued after four years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were barred by time.
The Tribunal agreed that it would be inequitable to penalize the assessee if similar cases involving his brothers were dropped. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly examine the existence and demolition of the structure, nor did they inquire about the sale consideration's inclusion of the demolished structure. The assessee was not given a proper opportunity to prove these facts.
The Tribunal, noting that the Revenue had no objection, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as no adverse inference was drawn by the Assessing Officer in the original proceedings. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the claimed commission receipts and agricultural income. The AO's findings regarding fabricated documents and the illegality of agricultural receipts were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration. The activity of providing food at concessional rates, which did not even meet the cost, was not business. Furthermore, the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable to 'Relief to Poor' activities, which was the primary object.
The Tribunal restored the issue of rent disallowance to the AO for cross-examination, partly allowed the guarantee payment issue for de-novo consideration, allowed the addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- as unexplained loan, and restored the disallowance of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the AO for a speaking order.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte assessment and appeal were completed due to improper service of notices on the old address, which the assessee had not received. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as it was done after four years from the end of the assessment year without any new material coming to the AO's notice. The proviso to Section 147 requires failure to disclose material facts for reopening after four years.
The Tribunal held that non-receipt of notices due to a change of address, which was duly intimated, constitutes a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) should not be imposed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made reasonable inquiries and obtained necessary confirmations. The CIT's order was set aside as the AO had not overlooked the issue and the CIT acted casually without demonstrating a fallacy in the AO's action.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.