Loading ITAT cases…
67 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) incorrectly observed that the assessee did not file a delay condonation application. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) to decide afresh after considering the assessee's delay condonation application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's medical condition supported by an affidavit. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to be cooperative and the CIT(A) to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to be cooperative and the CIT(A) to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's uncontroverted affidavit regarding technological challenges. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to be cooperative and for the CIT(A) to ensure natural justice.
The Tribunal held that quoting a wrong provision of law should not be a bar to considering an application if the authority has jurisdiction. The CIT(Exemption) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the mistake.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reason for delay to be sufficient. The tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing the need for the assessee to be cooperative and for the CIT(A) to ensure natural justice.
The tribunal found that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was not supported by reasons and lacked proper application of mind. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The appeals were admitted for hearing and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to judicially appreciate the facts and evidence, particularly the assessee's affidavit stating no property was purchased. The inclusion of irrelevant pages in the CIT(A)'s order indicated a non-application of mind.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the first appeal, emphasizing that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, emphasizing that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE is applicable only from Assessment Year 2018-19 onwards. Therefore, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, the tax should be levied at the normal rate of 30%.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The appeals were admitted for hearing and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that both revenue authorities ignored the assessee's bills for cost of improvement and admitted the valuation report as additional evidence. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh computation of capital gains after verification.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantial discussion on merits. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that LFC exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India. Foreign travel, even with Indian start/end points, violates the purpose of LTC and is not eligible for exemption. Therefore, the assessee is liable for TDS and consequential interest.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied due to technicalities and that provisions for condoning delay should be interpreted liberally. The delay of 214 days was condoned.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the rectification order had resolved the dispute. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied due to technicalities and that provisions for condoning delay should be interpreted liberally. The delay of 214 days was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide specific defects in the audited books of accounts and did not rebut the assessee's submissions with cogent evidence. The Tribunal deleted the additions made for estimated gross profit and unexplained cash credit, considering the deposits to be out of genuine business sales.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner for issuing notice under Section 148 was not valid as it did not reflect an independent application of mind. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of belated employee PF contributions is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. However, it also found merit in the assessee's reliance on other ITAT decisions regarding the timing of salary disbursement.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 12A(2) allows for the benefit of subsequent registration to be applied to pending assessment proceedings. It also found that the donations were supported by voluminous documentary evidence and should not have been treated as unexplained cash credit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made the claim on a bona fide basis with complete disclosure, and an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty cannot be imposed.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, when a return was filed in response to a notice under Section 148, is fatal to the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance on a case dealing with imported liquor was distinguishable. Considering the assessee's consistent low profit margins in country liquor trade and similar cases, the Tribunal found the estimated 3% profit to be excessive.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- for alleged betting income was made without merit. The AO failed to provide cross-examination of a key witness or the police report to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. No money or bullion was found from the assessee's possession to justify the addition under Section 69A.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2013-14 as withdrawn due to the low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal upheld the NFAC's deletion of the addition for ingenuine purchases, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine transactions.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Consequently, the revision order passed by the PCIT was set aside.
The Tribunal held that M/s. Jain Bullion was a proprietary concern of Mr. Nirmal Kumar Jain, and its income should be taxed in his hands. The Tribunal also found that Jain Bullion's sales and cash deposits were genuine and explained, leading to the deletion of additions made under Section 68. The addition for deemed rent was also deleted as no incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against the legal heir, without establishing their status as a legal representative of the deceased's estate, was not sustainable in law. This was based on a similar decision by a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed on income assessed on an estimated basis, especially when the AO was satisfied with the books of accounts. The AO also failed to specify whether the penalty was for underreporting or misreporting of income.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on mere assumptions and suspicions from an Excel sheet without corroborative evidence. Following precedents, the Tribunal found the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence of banking transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. It further held that the matter required a denovo assessment as the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders without deciding on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the assessee had declared the sales and offered them to tax, and the addition under Section 68 was unsustainable. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be detailed and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on an unauthenticated third-party Excel sheet without independent corroborative evidence. It also noted the violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against the legal heir, without establishing their status as a legal representative of the deceased's estate, was not sustainable in law. This was based on a similar decision by a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient documentary evidence to justify the contravention of Section 269ST. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm additions for unexplained cash deposits and disallowable cash purchases. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits and the genuineness of cash purchases.
The Tribunal held that relief under Section 89(1) is available for perquisites, as perquisites are considered part of salary under Section 17(1)(iv). Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the claimed relief on the employer's contribution to the superannuation fund.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions of Section 54F by purchasing a residential plot and completing construction within the stipulated timelines. The registered sale deed for the plot, though submitted late, proved the purchase cost.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity (dissolved partnership firm) are void ab initio. Since the notice under Section 148 and the consequential assessment order were passed against a non-existent entity, they were set aside.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity (dissolved partnership firm) are void ab initio. Since the notice under Section 148 and the consequential assessment order were passed against a non-existent entity, they were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it. It found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the quantum appeal on delay and restored it for de novo adjudication. The penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) as its outcome depended on the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that making an independent addition on account of cash deposits without considering the accepted business income is unsustainable. It directed the AO to examine the peak credit theory and tax only the peak credit amount instead of the entire deposit.
The Tribunal held that a GST refund, representing excess GST paid, is not a taxable receipt and should not be credited to the profit and loss account. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the JCIT(A) was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that no penalty can be levied on an estimated addition, as even the statute recognizes immunity from penalty on estimated income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 270A(9) was deleted.