Loading ITAT cases…
166 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee should not suffer due to the CA's mistake and the Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal further found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proper verification or discussion on merits.
The Tribunal noted that while there was non-compliance, the CIT(A) did not pass an order on merits. Considering natural justice and the assessee's request, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass an order on merit after affording due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer for withdrawal due to settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to revive it under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act if the scheme benefits could not be availed due to technicalities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the explanation for the delay to be sufficient and not due to malafide intention. The Tribunal also admitted an additional ground of appeal as it was legal in nature and went to the root of the matter.
The Tribunal noted that the 80G registration was subsequently granted to the trust and that the present appeal proceedings had become infructuous. The Revenue offered no objection to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 17 days, noting the medical circumstances of the counsel. The appeal was remitted to the CIT(E) to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing, as the earlier order was ex-parte.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's significant income and living situation, concluding that Rs. 70,000/- for an iPhone was a reasonable expenditure explainable from family savings. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that Form-2 was issued by the Income Tax Department, and the DR had no objection to the withdrawal request. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry and verified the documents submitted by the assessee. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) erred in exercising powers under Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's order also travelled beyond the scope of the show-cause notice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal. However, since the assessee filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal to avail the benefit of the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme', the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) on a denovo basis. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Department and not seek adjournments.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has availed the benefit of the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and resolved the dispute with the revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. However, considering the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme', the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the explanation for the delay to be sufficient and not due to malafide intention. The Tribunal also admitted an additional ground of appeal as it was legal in nature and went to the root of the matter.
The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction on interest income from nationalized banks was debatable at the time of filing the return, and the assessee may have acted under a bonafide belief. Additionally, the AO did not conclusively specify the charge for the penalty. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw all captioned appeals, acknowledging their settlement under the DTVSV Scheme. The Tribunal granted a caveat, permitting the assessee to seek reinstitution of the appeals if the forms filed under the scheme are rejected at a later stage.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 50C, which allows consideration based on the agreement date, was introduced prospectively from 01.04.2017. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to the assessee's case, and the AO's addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the assessee's books of account based on a small period of alleged unaccounted sales. The GP rate disclosed by the assessee in their audited books was not disturbed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw all captioned appeals, acknowledging their settlement under the DTVSV Scheme. The Tribunal granted a caveat, permitting the assessee to seek reinstitution of the appeals if the forms filed under the scheme are rejected at a later stage.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw all captioned appeals, acknowledging their settlement under the DTVSV Scheme. The Tribunal granted a caveat, permitting the assessee to seek reinstitution of the appeals if the forms filed under the scheme are rejected at a later stage.
The Tribunal held that the excess cash found during the survey was generated from the assessee's business. Therefore, applying Section 115BBE to this amount was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked tangible material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, as the information received was not independently verified and the concept of layering was not established. The notice issued under Section 148 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on FDRs kept as margin money is not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IC, following a Supreme Court decision. Similarly, interest on FDRs in an escrow account is not eligible as the business had not commenced.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee made adequate disclosure regarding the provision for standard assets in its books of accounts and the return of income. It was clarified that the assessee did not specifically claim the provision under Section 36(1)(viia); rather, the AO considered it in that context and held it disallowable. The Tribunal found that a disallowance in quantum proceedings, where there is adequate disclosure and the matter is debatable, cannot automatically lead to a charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars without positive evidence of wrong furnishing of information. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., which held that a mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. The penalty was directed to be deleted. The same reasoning was applied to the appeal for AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made adequate disclosure in its return regarding the provisions. A mere claim that is not sustainable in law, when adequately disclosed, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and relegated the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was allowed to file the paper book before the AO, and the AO was directed to consider fresh evidence and decide the matter afresh.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, deeming it infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. It clarified that if the assessee faced technicalities preventing full benefit from the scheme, both parties retained the liberty to seek revival of the appeal by filing an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act within the stipulated limitation period.
The Tribunal observed that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed their orders ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh order to be passed on a de novo basis.
The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 148 to the assessee's last known Indian address was valid as the assessee had not updated his non-resident status or address. However, the addition under Section 69 was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to provide evidence of the source and transmission of funds from Portugal.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, based on the assessee's submission of having opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas, 2024' Scheme. It was clarified that if the assessee is unable to benefit from the scheme due to technicalities, they retain the liberty to revive the appeal by filing a Miscellaneous Application within the limitation period prescribed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.
The Assessing Officer did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) and was prevented by sufficient cause from attending the proceedings. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the impugned rectification order was bad in law as it ignored previous submissions and case laws that formed the basis of the original order. The Tribunal found that the facts of the assessee's case were materially different from the case relied upon for rectification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity and should not be condemned unheard. For substantial justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2018-19, CPC lacked the jurisdiction under Section 143(1) to disallow a Section 80P deduction solely based on a belated return, as the enabling statutory amendments (Section 80AC amended by Finance Act 2018, and Section 143(1)(a)(v) by Finance Act 2021) were not in force for that assessment year. The disallowance was deleted, and the AO was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and did not pursue the appeal. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on a denovo basis.
The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex-parte and lacked findings on merits. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits of the case. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh investigation and adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the subscription income might be covered by mutuality, interest earned on FDRs is not. However, since the addition of Rs. 97,235/- was below the taxable threshold for an Association of Persons, there was no tax liability.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT DR did not object to the withdrawal application. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT failed to properly read the bank statement, which indicated systematic deposits and withdrawals characteristic of a small-time trader, and that the AO had justifiably drawn conclusions. The Tribunal noted that the peak amount in the account was less than the addition already made by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue, and Section 263 was not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263. A perusal of the notification indicated that exemption was granted for both grant-in-aid and interest accrued on CCTNS fund, which was considered a consolidated fund for a government project. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging that the dispute had become infructuous due to the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee could not fully avail the scheme's benefits due to technicalities, either party could apply under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act to revive the appeal within the scheme's limitation period.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory procedure by not adjudicating the appeal on merits and dismissing it ex-parte. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the delay was not intentional and was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, including the death of the Trust's Chairman and the closure of institutions. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the delay was not intentional and was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, including the death of the Trust's Chairman and the closure of institutions. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, deeming it infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. It was clarified that if the assessee faces technicalities preventing them from fully benefiting from the scheme, either party could apply under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act to revive the appeal within the scheme's limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was based on a technical ground and lacked natural justice as it did not decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merit after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the delay was not intentional and was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, including the death of the Trust's Chairman and the closure of institutions. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.