Loading ITAT cases…
83 orders · Page 2 of 2
The tribunal found no proof of proper notice service by the CIT(A) and decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A). This allows the assessee another opportunity to provide documentary evidence for the sale of property and explain the cash deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the minor delay in the assessee's appeal to it and remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the original appeal and, if satisfactorily explained, to admit and adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal condoned a 546-day delay in filing the appeal, imposing a token cost of Rs. 5,000. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary evidence, without expressing an opinion on the merits.
The tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of natural justice, allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. It directed the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment, with the assessee required to pay Rs. 5,000 to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund as a condition.
The tribunal restored most issues, including TP adjustment, penalty under Section 271G, cash credits, and capital contributions, back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, citing the ex-parte nature of previous orders and the assessee's willingness to present its case. However, a minor ad-hoc disallowance for car expenditure was upheld.
The tribunal restored most issues, including TP adjustment, penalty under Section 271G, cash credits, and capital contributions, back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, citing the ex-parte nature of previous orders and the assessee's willingness to present its case. However, a minor ad-hoc disallowance for car expenditure was upheld.
The tribunal restored most issues, including TP adjustment, penalty under Section 271G, cash credits, and capital contributions, back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, citing the ex-parte nature of previous orders and the assessee's willingness to present its case. However, a minor ad-hoc disallowance for car expenditure was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned a 400-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical issues. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and present his case, emphasizing principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment for a fresh assessment, stating that all legal issues, including the reopening of the assessment, would remain open for consideration by the AO. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal held that additions cannot be made based on presumptions or assumptions without supporting evidence. Since the assessee had opted for presumptive taxation under Section 44ADA and declared income exceeding the prescribed rate, and the disputed amount was already included in the declared receipts, the addition was not justified.
The tribunal dismissed the legal ground challenging the reopening, finding that the AO had sufficient reasons and tangible material. On merits, the tribunal restored the issue of the Rs. 41.50 Lacs addition back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate the source of the deposits.
The tribunal condoned a 594-day delay in filing the appeal, imposing a cost of Rs. 5000, and remanded the case back to the CIT(A). This was done to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case, emphasizing principles of natural justice.
The tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee one more opportunity to furnish documentary evidence, specifically regarding the claim that the financial transactions belonged to the company. A token cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for intentional non-compliance.
The Tribunal, citing principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case forthwith.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's nature as a charitable institution. It restored the matter of registration back to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration, directing the assessee to substantiate its charitable activities.
The tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee one more opportunity to furnish documentary evidence, specifically regarding the claim that the financial transactions belonged to the company. A token cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for intentional non-compliance.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had shown the car as a fixed asset and claimed depreciation. It decided to restore the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide the necessary documentary evidence to substantiate its claim.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's plea that the bank account mentioned by the AO might not belong to them and that they could substantiate this. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to prove their case.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It held that the provisions of Section 44AD were applicable, and the net profit from eligible business should be estimated at 8% of the gross sales of Rs. 1.21 crores, which includes the SBN deposits, thereby disallowing a separate addition under Section 69A.
The Tribunal condoned a 53-day delay in filing the appeal and remanded the case back to the CIT(A). This was to provide the assessee another opportunity to submit documentary evidence regarding land holdings and agricultural activities to substantiate the declared income.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submissions regarding medical indisposition and the nature of their business. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to explain their case regarding advance tax liability before the first appellate authority, which was to then admit the appeal for adjudication on merits upon satisfactory explanation. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
The tribunal held that all bank credits, including the demonetization period deposits, should be treated as business receipts. Considering the assessee's wholesale mobile phone business, a thin-margin commodity, the tribunal reduced the estimated income rate from 8% to 4% of the total bank credits.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submissions regarding medical indisposition and the nature of their business. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to explain their case regarding advance tax liability before the first appellate authority, which was to then admit the appeal for adjudication on merits upon satisfactory explanation. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment for a de novo fresh assessment. The tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) was justified in invoking the amended provisions of Section 251(1) given the ex-parte nature of the original assessment and the lack of assessee representation at earlier stages. The tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the additions.
Since the underlying assessment order, which was the basis for the penalty, has been set aside for fresh assessment by the CIT(A), the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) does not survive and is quashed.
The tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeal based on the available records and grounds of appeal, after hearing the Ld. DR, due to the non-appearance of the assessee. The specific decision on the merits of the appeal is not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The tribunal held that the sale consideration would logically exchange hands at the time of execution of registered documents. It found no evidence to rebut the assessee's claim that the cash deposits were from property sale proceeds and earlier income, and that the time gap alone was insufficient to reject the explanation. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The tribunal condoned the delay, admitted the appeal, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of carrying out charitable activities like 'langar' and medical relief. However, the assessee failed to produce financial statements to substantiate these claims during the hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, admitting the appeal despite a 7-day delay. It directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the appeal on merits, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity to present their case, and not to raise the issue of advance tax.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal as the Senior Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal condoned the delay, admitted the appeal, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the appeal on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to present its case and provide evidence before the CIT(A).