Loading ITAT cases…
166 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the Revenue's representative did not object. It also granted the Assessee liberty to revive the appeal through a Misc. Application under Section 254(2) of the Act if they are unable to avail the benefits of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme due to technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) dated April 30, 2024, is to be set aside. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had taken up an appeal that had already been decided. The CIT(A) had previously decided the appeal on December 30, 2019. Subsequently, the CIT(A) picked up the same appeal again, dismissed it for want of prosecution, and unnecessarily decided the same matter twice. The Tribunal found this to be a procedural impropriety. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was vacated. The operative direction was to vacate the order of the CIT(A). No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal by the Assessee, considering the circumstances including the COVID-19 pandemic and Supreme Court orders extending timelines. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme, and the quantum appeal had already been dismissed as withdrawn by a coordinate bench. The Tribunal observed that the tax arrears included both tax and penalty, and the assessee had opted for settlement, which had progressed with the issuance of Form 3, albeit with a request for amendment. The Tribunal found no useful purpose in further adjourning the matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal by filing a Miscellaneous Application if the benefit of the scheme could not be availed due to technicalities, within the limitation period under Section 254(2).
The Tribunal noted that no explanation was furnished by the assessee and the appeal was filed against an ex-parte order. However, to ensure substantial justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the cash deposits were out of the cash in hand as on the date of demonetization. Since the books of accounts were accepted and the cash balance was established, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, the Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified, both on legal grounds and on merits, and quashed the same.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO, making the subsequent reassessment proceedings void. The assessment framed by the DCIT (International Taxation) was also quashed as it was based on an invalid notice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it. The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved one last opportunity and should not be condemned unheard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's section 12A registration was initially rejected and later restored by a Coordinate Bench for adjudication by the Ld. CIT(E). Considering this, the matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's argument hinges on the retrospective applicability of the Finance Act, 2016 amendment to Section 50C, which makes the date of agreement crucial for determining fair market value. The Tribunal has not yet pronounced its decision on this specific point, but the appeal is related to the sustenance of the addition by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and lacked findings on the merits of the case. Applying the principle of substantial justice, the matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-compliance due to non-receipt of notices and admitted the additional evidence regarding the sale of agricultural land. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted proper inquiry regarding the share sales, which occurred through recognized stock exchanges and banking channels. The assessee provided proof for share purchases, including bank records showing funds from an HUF account and an affidavit. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(38) was valid and that the AO's original assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, thus quashing the PCIT's revision order.
The Tribunal held that the additions for unsecured loans were explained by the submission of bank statements and account details, thus deleting the addition. For the second issue, the Tribunal estimated the income at 10% of the disputed receipt, directing the AO to recompute accordingly.
The Tribunal noted a delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned. It was observed that sale bills were not available, making it difficult to verify the transactions. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification and to provide relief if the sales were found to be in order.
The Tribunal held that the property was residential, not commercial, based on the provisional allotment letter and the registered valuer's report. They directed the AO to recompute the Long Term Capital Gain using the residential DLC rate of Rs. 6800 per sq. meter.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were bad in law as they were issued and framed by a non-jurisdictional officer and not properly served on the assessee. The Tribunal quashed the notice and the assessment order.
The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based on a general assessment of declining business trends and not specific disallowed expenses. While acknowledging some discrepancies and the assessee's offer of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance, deeming the AO's quantification method unacceptable.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF/ESI can only be allowed as a deduction if it is paid within the prescribed due dates. The Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was relied upon, which clearly distinguishes between employer's primary liability and the liability to deposit employee contributions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity by the Ld. CIT(A) and was prevented by sufficient cause from attending the proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted confirmation from the payee, Mr. Vivek Jindal, who confirmed receipt of Rs. 10,12,400/-. The Tribunal noted that similar claims were allowed in earlier years and directed the deletion of the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not point out any defect in the assessee's cash sales records, and the yield of manufactured goods was commensurate with previous years. Therefore, the cash deposits were considered explained. However, a protective addition made to the assessee was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration along with the appeal of the party to whom the substantive addition was made.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 18,21,299/- on account of alleged unrecorded purchases under section 69B was not to be adjudicated based on fresh explanations provided by both sides before the Tribunal, as these were not considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal noted that the assessee offered new explanations and the revenue controverted them with new submissions. As the Tribunal is not the first fact-finding authority, it set aside this addition and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to place all material and contentions before the CIT(A), who could allow the assessee to resort to Rule 46A for placing fresh material. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 30,824/- on account of cessation of liability under section 41. The Tribunal noted that the assessee itself admitted to not having business relations with M/s Diwan Chand & Sons for a long time, which justified the CIT(A)'s finding that the liability had ceased. Therefore, the addition was sustained. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the applicability of section 69B based on the new arguments presented.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the bonafide lapse and the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal partially remanded the issue of explaining the source of deposits back to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry and opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the sum of Rs.21 lacs deposited during demonetization should not be treated separately. It should be included in the total turnover, and profit estimated at 8%, with the normal rate of tax applied.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount represented business income, as the assessee explained its source as business earnings and the nature as business-related expenses/stock. Therefore, Section 115BBE was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal found that both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and lacked analytical examination of the major addition concerning loan accounts.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the action taken by the CIT under Section 263 was not sustainable as it was initiated without issuing a proper Show Cause Notice. The earlier notices issued by the CIT were based on an incorrect premise that the return was not filed within the due date, which was later extended by the CBDT.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. This decision was based on the consistent non-cooperation of the assessee and their counsel, repeated adjournments, and the inability of the counsel to provide necessary details or contact the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's repeated adjournments and failure to cooperate, as well as the inability of the counsel to contact the assessee for necessary details. The Tribunal noted that further adjournment would not yield any result.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to send notices to the assessee's updated email address, violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had availed the benefit of the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' to resolve the dispute with the Revenue.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer and dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. The appeals became infructuous due to the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. However, the assessee was given liberty to revive the appeals if they failed to get the full benefit of the scheme due to technicalities.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were void ab initio as no incriminating material relating to the assessee was found during the search. Consequently, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order sustaining additions based on such proceedings could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that while a charitable institution cannot use surplus funds for non-charitable purposes, minor violations of Section 13 should not lead to denial of exemption entirely. The AO should have analytically examined the purpose of the advances and the potential for interest income.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.09/2024. The dismissal was without prejudice to any exceptions mentioned in the circular.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It was noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' to resolve the dispute.
The Tribunal held that a second notice for reopening under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued if assessment proceedings from a prior reopening notice for the same assessment year are still pending and have not been terminated. For ITA No. 282/Chd/2023, the Tribunal noted that the reasons for reopening did not specify escapement of income.