Loading ITAT cases…
110 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as there was no material to suggest the unit was formed by splitting up an existing business, especially since a similar issue for a later assessment year was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(3) due to lack of evidence for business exigency. It allowed an appeal related to an unsecured loan from Jasmel Singh. For additions concerning Harpreet Singh Bajwa and S. Ali, the Tribunal confirmed the addition for Harpreet Singh Bajwa but remitted the case for S. Ali to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an individual engaged in ticketing and money transfer, rightly filed his return under Section 44AD. The commission income is covered under Section 44AD, and the AO's finding to the contrary was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had stated the unrecorded cash was out of professional receipts and the Revenue failed to prove any other source of income. Therefore, the applicability of sections 69, 69A, 69B, 69C read with section 115BBE was difficult to sustain.
The Tribunal held that for Section 263 to apply, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Since the income was already offered to tax in the hands of the partnership firm and accepted by the revenue in previous years, there was no loss of revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the CIT(A) also passed the order without hearing the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by explaining the source of funds as a gift from his father, supported by evidence of the sale of agricultural land and the flow of funds. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The ITAT held that the appeal was not maintainable before the Chandigarh Bench as the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer was in Jaipur. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should have been condoned in the interest of natural justice. The Tribunal also found that the compensation received under VRS on forced retrenchment should be considered as part of compensation and allowed the appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present the valuation report for the Section 54F deduction, which had been obtained. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed without proper adjudication on merits and without giving the assessee a sufficient opportunity to present their case, especially considering the challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as per their request. It also noted that the appeals could be revived if the assessee fails to get the benefit of the scheme due to technicalities.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back. The CIT(A) was directed to allow the assessee a hearing through video conferencing as per the Faceless Appeals Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they were availing the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme. However, the assessee can revive the appeals if they fail to get the benefit of the scheme due to technicalities.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking in merit-based discussion. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. This position is supported by various High Court decisions.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee can revive the appeal if they fail to get the benefit of the scheme due to technicalities.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had sufficiently proved the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the lender and the source of funds. The Tribunal noted that the assessee demonstrated the source of the source of the loan.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee can revive the appeal if the scheme benefits are not availed due to technicalities.
The Tribunal held that any addition must be made through the assessment order and not independently in the computation sheet. Therefore, the addition made solely in the computation sheet was not sustainable.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee intended to avail the benefits of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme. The assessee was given liberty to revive the appeal if the scheme benefits were not availed due to technicalities.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if they fail to avail the scheme benefits due to technicalities.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the revenue did not object to the withdrawal application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the matter was decided ex-parte by both the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity, and the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to respond to a deficiency notice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's explanation regarding advance tax liability and other contentions.
The Tribunal held that when income is assessed under Section 115JB (Minimum Alternate Tax) and the tax payable under normal provisions is lower, any concealment or inaccurate particulars furnished under normal provisions do not lead to tax evasion and thus penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand as of December 2, 2016, which included SBNs from legitimate cash sales made on or before that date. The Tribunal found that the explanation provided for the delay in deposit was reasonable and that the addition was based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (bank statements of creditors) for capital credits, finding they established a banking trail. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on these grounds. The ground related to purchases was not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt but was part of the overall appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposit as being out of earlier withdrawals made from his bank accounts. The withdrawals were for medical contingencies and other expenses, and the unspent amount was deposited back.
The Tribunal held that forming a trust for CSR compliance is permissible and does not automatically disqualify it for registration. The objections regarding the trust's composition and activities were found to be adequately addressed by the trust deed and the Companies Act provisions. The Tribunal directed the CIT to grant registration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) are independent and do not need to wait for the decision of the main appeal. The assessee's contention of not receiving notices was also rejected based on the AO's records.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposit as it was from earlier cash withdrawals, and the ultimate source was the sale of agricultural land. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was not justified.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE is applicable only when income is determined under specific deeming provisions (Sections 68-69D). Since the surrendered income was accepted as regular business income and no deeming provisions were invoked by the AO, the rectification under Section 154 was not permissible.
The Tribunal found insufficient material to decide the exact nature of the transactions and the assessee's role. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination and determination of the TDS credit claim.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to remand the case back to the AO for fresh assessment. However, considering the assessment order was passed ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the assessee's case from ITO, Muktsar to ITO, Chandigarh was not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that no valid order of transfer was produced, and the transfer was initiated by the assessee's request, but the Assessing Officer at Muktsar failed to follow the due process of law under Section 127. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 issued by the ITO, Muktsar, was deemed bad in law. Furthermore, no fresh Section 148 notice was issued by the ITO, Ward 4(5) Chandigarh. The Tribunal concluded that all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, were void ab initio. The ratio decidendi is that a valid order of transfer under Section 127 is a prerequisite for an Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction over a case transferred from another jurisdiction, and failure to comply renders all subsequent actions illegal. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal did not examine other legal contentions as the foundational assessment order was void.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, citing the counsel's mistake and the assessee's bonafide belief. The Tribunal allowed the exemption claim under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) for both assessment years, holding that the conditions regarding audit reports and registration were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in making an addition for unexplained cash credits as the assessee did not cooperate or provide any explanation for the large deposits. The CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, citing the counsel's mistake and the assessee's bonafide belief. The Tribunal allowed the exemption claim under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) for both assessment years, holding that the conditions regarding audit reports and registration were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was bad in law and in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of personal hearing was provided. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the delay condonation application at the outset and in dealing with the merits of the case before addressing the preliminary issue of limitation. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and in violation of natural justice because notices were sent to the wrong email address. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was bad in law and in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of personal hearing was provided. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit for amounts reversed by third parties was no longer in dispute as the assessee had revised her claim. For amounts received in a subsequent financial year, TDS credit should be allowed in that subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was bad in law and in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of personal hearing was provided. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of major additions related to share application money and unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, financial capacity, and genuineness of the transactions.