Loading ITAT cases…
78 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) for AY 2018-19, following a previous order of a coordinate bench. The CIT(Exemptions) had erred in not granting the registration as per the Tribunal's directions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and had failed to provide reasons for its decision. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the Act read with the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajeev Bansal and Ashish Agarwal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of participation in the first appellate proceedings despite opportunities. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to be diligent.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not passed an order on merits and lacked analysis, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the Act read with the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajeev Bansal and Ashish Agarwal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the Act read with the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajeev Bansal and Ashish Agarwal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the PCIT provided insufficient opportunity for hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the Act read with the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajeev Bansal and Ashish Agarwal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established a direct link between the cash withdrawn and the subsequent deposit. The revenue had not brought any material on record to show the cash was utilized elsewhere, thus the assessee's explanation was accepted.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance at both assessment and appellate stages. However, considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- by showing it was withdrawn from an OD account and subsequently re-deposited. Therefore, the addition to that extent should not be made.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151 was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the reassessment proceedings void. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was settled by the assessee under the VSV scheme, making the Revenue's appeal infructuous. Both parties agreed with this position.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was provided multiple opportunities but failed to make submissions before the AO and CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after ensuring observance of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's illness. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond six years based solely on third-party information without demonstrating the assessee's failure to disclose material information is invalid. Furthermore, adding an amount already disclosed in the assessee's return constitutes double addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established running a coaching centre and hostel, and the cash deposits were related to fees received from students. Therefore, the addition related to advance fees and fees received from students was directed to be allowed. However, issues related to agricultural income and a deposit from Lala Ram required further verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's illness. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's illness. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's illness. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed a direct connection between cash deposits and withdrawals for medical purposes. It allowed cash deposits to the extent of cash withdrawn and sustained the addition only for the remaining unexplained amount after considering declared dairy income.
The Tribunal held that the concept of merger did not apply as the original assessment was modified by the PCIT. The assessee's grounds were not specific enough to grant relief.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under section 151 was invalid due to the Assessing Officer's inconsistent estimations of income escaping assessment. Furthermore, the actual escapement of income of Rs. 27,00,000 was below the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000 required for reopening beyond three years.
The Tribunal held that it has the power to remit an issue back to the Assessing Officer for further verification. Specifically, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue of TDS credit back to the Assessing Officer. The reasoning is that the Assessing Officer needs to verify the reconciliation statement submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct this verification, provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard, and then allow the TDS credit as per law. The ratio decidendi is that where factual verification is required, especially concerning reconciliation statements for TDS credit, the appellate authority can remand the matter to the lower authority for proper adjudication after due process. The operative direction is to remit the issue to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 2% of the bogus purchases. It acknowledged that the assessee had declared sales against these purchases, which were not disturbed by the Assessing Officer, and that the assessee was in the business of scrap sales.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was granted mechanically and without application of independent mind by the PCIT. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the additional evidence and decide the case on merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance before both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). However, considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the uncontroverted affidavit. While acknowledging the assessee's lack of diligence, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, granting a last opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should not be denied due to technicalities and that provisions for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had provided several opportunities, the assessee failed to make submissions. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to be diligent.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide a last opportunity to the assessee. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording a proper hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, but the assessee failed to make submissions. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to afford an opportunity of hearing and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to make submissions. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the bonafide reasons provided. While noting the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits to ensure principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that provisions for condoning delay should be interpreted liberally. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee failed to produce bank statements and supporting evidence was perverse, as the assessment order itself admitted prior withdrawals exceeding the deposit. The Tribunal also found that the Rs. 3,00,290/- was established as reimbursement payments for office maintenance and transaction fees.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that provisions for condoning delay should be interpreted liberally. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the peculiar facts and the assessee's humble background, decided to grant one more opportunity. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased person is invalid and all consequent assessment proceedings are null and void. Section 159 of the Act does not apply when the notice is issued after the assessee's death.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance by the assessee without addressing the merits. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not addressed the issues on merit and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the peculiar facts, decided to grant one more opportunity. The appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) had not addressed the issues on merit and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) had not addressed the issues on merit and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the peculiar facts, granted one more opportunity. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reassessment was based on a 'change of opinion'. The Tribunal found that the AO had access to all necessary purchase and sales details during the original assessment and made no additions then, making the reopening impermissible.
The CIT(A) correctly held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the AO's reasons amounting to 'reason to suspect' rather than 'reason to believe' and violation of natural justice by not providing the DIT report. The tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A)'s findings of no specific defects in the books were correct, the estimation of profit at 0.5% was not directly applicable from a previous year's case due to different factual circumstances. The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate net profit at 0.45% of turnover.