Loading ITAT cases…
84 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 53 days, finding sufficient and reasonable cause due to miscommunication between the assessee and their tax consultant. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal decided that the sale consideration should be taken at the value determined by the DVO, which was significantly lower than the stamp duty valuation. This was based on a previous decision in the case of another co-owner.
The Tribunal noted the conflicting judicial precedents on whether compensation for breach of contract is taxable. It highlighted the distinction between 'right to sue' and 'right to seek conveyance of property' for taxation purposes. The Tribunal found that the authorities below were silent on whether the compensation was for giving up a 'right to sue'.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,66,000/- under Section 40A(3) due to lack of substantiation for cash payment exemptions. It also confirmed the denial of carry forward of Rs. 6,44,785/- as loss due to the belated filing of the return.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that their submissions and evidence regarding the source of cash deposits were not considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue was restored back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form No. 3. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere with the refusal to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal also agreed that the addition was rightly upheld as the assessee had admitted it.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme provides for such withdrawals. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's adjustment under Section 143(1) was made without affording the assessee an opportunity to respond, which is a mandatory procedural requirement. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding its 12A registration and the fact that its income was below the taxable limit.
The tribunal noted the assessee's submission seeking withdrawal of the appeal as the basis for the appeal no longer existed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided that the sale consideration should be taken at the value determined by the DVO, which was significantly lower than the stamp duty valuation. This was based on a previous decision in the case of another co-owner.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to invoke the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) and did not follow the principles of natural justice by not providing a proper hearing. The Tribunal also noted that for the search year, Section 271AAA would be applicable, not Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to invoke the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) and did not follow the principles of natural justice by not providing a proper hearing. The Tribunal also noted that for the search year, Section 271AAA would be applicable, not Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to invoke the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) and did not follow the principles of natural justice by not providing a proper hearing. The Tribunal also noted that for the search year, Section 271AAA would be applicable, not Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 as the issue had attained finality after the CIT(A)'s order, which was not appealed by the Revenue. The Tribunal quashed the revisionary order.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits are not availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment were not based on proper application of mind and lacked specific details. The AO had not cross-verified the information before issuing the notice under Section 148.
The Tribunal held that the same yardstick applied to co-owners, where the DVO determined the property value at Rs. 73,92,000, should be applied to the assessee. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on technical grounds was also criticized.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, despite the assessee's negligence. The Tribunal set aside both impugned orders and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in deleting the upward adjustment made by the TPO regarding the sale of steam by the CPP.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits were not availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and evidence correlating the cash deposits with prior cash withdrawals. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits are not availed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to invoke the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) and did not follow the principles of natural justice by not providing a proper hearing. The Tribunal also noted that for the search year, Section 271AAA would be applicable, not Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to provide any evidence of unaccounted expenses corresponding to the unaccounted receipts, the entire gross amount of unaccounted receipts should be brought to tax. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously admitted the gross amount as income in letters written to the department.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was mechanical and not in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The foundation of the reopening was therefore bad in law, rendering the assessment null and void.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was valid. However, the quantification of GP addition by the Assessing Officer was unclear, necessitating a remand.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an opportunity for a proper hearing at any stage and that principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including an amended trust deed, and restored the issue to the CIT for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found that the amended trust deed was approved after the CIT's order, making it impossible for the assessee to submit it earlier.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of interest expenses, finding that the AO's calculations were flawed and the funds were not diverted for non-commercial activities. The Tribunal also noted that a portion of the interest was already included in closing WIP, preventing double taxation.
The Tribunal held that Section 92BA(i) was omitted from the statute by the Finance Act, 2017, and its omission means it should be considered as if it never existed. Therefore, invoking this section for transactions after its omission is without basis and bad in law.