Loading ITAT cases…
143 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that there is a clear distinction between the employer's primary liability under Section 36(1)(iv) and the liability to deposit employee's contributions under Section 36(1)(va). The latter is deemed income and subject to timely deposit. Failure to deposit timely leads to disallowance.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea for another opportunity to present their case. The assessment was restored to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to plead and prove their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee preferred a rectification application, which led to the delayed filing. The delay of 48 days could have been condoned. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and verify the facts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without considering the facts of the case, and to provide natural justice, the assessee should be given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without considering the facts of the case, and to provide natural justice, the assessee should be given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without considering the facts of the case, and to provide natural justice, the assessee should be given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without considering the facts of the case, and to provide natural justice, the assessee should be given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had previously remanded the brother's case to the AO for fresh consideration. Therefore, considering this, the Tribunal remanded the present appeal also to the AO to decide the issue afresh, affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and considering the submissions made in the brother's case.
The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the lower authorities were ex-parte and the assessee's submissions were not considered. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter should be decided on merit. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of agricultural income was unsupported by any evidence of landholding or agricultural activity. The affidavits filed by the assessee and the ITP, submitted nearly four years after the assessment order and without explanation for the delay, were considered self-serving and not corroborated by independent evidence. The Tribunal noted that while the law permits rectification of mistakes, it does not countenance a situation where an assessee plays 'hide and seek' with the legal process and seeks to benefit from a calculated risk, especially when a false claim is detected. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition, citing the ratio in Durga Kamal Rice Mills (supra) that the AO is entitled to reject a claim unsupported and factually untenable. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered income was part of the assessee's regular business income, as it was voluntarily disclosed, linked to business activities, and supported by financial statements. The lower authorities' treatment of it as unexplained investment and taxation under Section 115BBE was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to rebut the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the genuineness of purchases and the corresponding sales and production. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising powers under Section 263. The scope of Section 263 cannot unilaterally enlarge the assessment, and the PCIT relied on material not part of the original reopening notice or show cause notice.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was legally unsustainable. The issues raised by the PCIT were already examined by the AO, and the PCIT could not invoke revisional jurisdiction merely based on a different opinion or audit objections.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn due to the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. It clarified that appeals could be revived under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act if the full benefit of the scheme was not availed due to technicalities, provided the application is filed within the due date of limitation.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn due to the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. It clarified that appeals could be revived under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act if the full benefit of the scheme was not availed due to technicalities, provided the application is filed within the due date of limitation.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn due to the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. It clarified that appeals could be revived under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act if the full benefit of the scheme was not availed due to technicalities, provided the application is filed within the due date of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons and deserved condonation in the interest of substantial justice. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation, acknowledging her initial non-compliance due to genuine reasons related to her husband's transferable service and her unfamiliarity with electronic communication. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had subsequently placed material on record to substantiate her claim regarding the source of funds, including bank statements and details of loans availed by her husband. The Revenue failed to contradict the documents filed by the assessee. The Tribunal considered the explanation that the cash belonged to her husband and was deposited back into the joint account during demonetization as plausible. It was demonstrated that the funds were withdrawn from identifiable banking sources of her husband and were not out of undisclosed income. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the strict application of section 69A would result in injustice. The addition of Rs.11,06,000/- and Rs.3,91,259/- (totaling Rs.14,97,259/-) made under section 69A was deemed unsustainable and accordingly deleted. No other grounds were urged or argued.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowances made by the AO. Regarding the payments to Global Educational Consultants and Shubhdeep Consultants, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision, implying that the conditions for disallowance under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(3) were not met. Concerning the disallowance of vehicle expenses, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the AO failed to provide evidence of personal use by trustees or functionaries. The Tribunal relied on the reasoning in the case of DCIT vs. Indo Soviet Friendship College of Pharmacy, where it was held that depreciation on luxury vehicles used for the purpose of meeting the society's objectives is allowable. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had submitted all details of vehicle usage and that the AO's disallowance was made on an ad-hoc basis without sufficient material. Therefore, the disallowance of vehicle expenses was deleted. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had failed to conduct proper inquiries and verifications regarding the issues flagged. The assessment order was rightly subjected to revision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim of agricultural income. The affidavits submitted to explain the discrepancy were found to be self-serving and filed with an inordinate delay, without justification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide a fair hearing and decide the matter independently on its merits, requiring the assessee's full cooperation.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn due to the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. It clarified that appeals could be revived under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act if the full benefit of the scheme was not availed due to technicalities, provided the application is filed within the due date of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to provide evidence to rebut the assessee's documentation supporting the purchases and their use in production and sales. Therefore, the additions made on account of bogus purchases were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee passed away and legal heirs were not traceable. Due to the inability to present any details regarding the HRA claim's admissibility, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was ex-parte and the bank statement needed cross-verification by the AO. Both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal in a summary and ex parte manner without examining the issues on merits, failing to provide a proper opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the possession and beneficial interest constitute a capital asset, and its relinquishment is a transfer. Therefore, the compensation received is assessable as capital gains, not income from other sources. Deductions under Sections 54 and 54EC were also held to be allowable.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons and deserved condonation in the interest of substantial justice. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional AO, but as per the notification, it should have been issued by the Faceless Assessment Unit. Following the High Court's judgment, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal, following judgments of the jurisdictional High Court, held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the jurisdictional AO was bad in law and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the re-assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(iib) was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the payments made by the assessee to the State Government were for obtaining mining leases and for the royalty paid on the extracted minerals. The Tribunal referred to the Explanation to Section 40(a)(iib) which clarifies that the provision applies to payments levied exclusively on a State Government undertaking by the State Government. In this case, the assessee is not a State Government undertaking, and the payments were made for statutory rights and mineral extraction, not as a levy exclusively on a State Government undertaking. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the nature of the assessee and the fact that income was assessed on a gross basis. The issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication to assess income on a net basis, following previous orders.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was initially barred by limitation but condoned the delay. Considering the assessee's specific submission regarding timely deposit and the provisions of Section 43B, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the factual correctness of the claim.
The Tribunal held that the opening capital balance, having been consistently accounted for in previous years, could not be added as income. Similarly, the addition for tanker expenses was deleted as the AO failed to establish that the income offered was not in consonance with the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AE.
The Tribunal held that the matter warrants a remand to the Assessing Officer (AO) due to various disputed facts remaining unexamined. This situation arose because the assessee failed to produce the registration certificate during assessment proceedings, and the AO proceeded under a misconception that the Section 12A registration was cancelled by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The eligibility for exemption under Section 11 also requires fresh examination. The assessee's failure to demonstrate cash balances in preceding years and substantiate the source of cash deposits during demonetization were factual aspects yet to be adjudicated. Given the incomplete factual matrix and insufficient evidentiary record, the Tribunal found it not feasible to adjudicate conclusively. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the AO to treat the assessee as a registered trust/society under Section 12A, conduct a de novo assessment, consider CBDT Circular No. 10/2019 regarding condonation of delay in filing Form 10B, examine evidentiary material for cash deposits, and determine eligibility for exemption under Sections 11 and 13. The AO was also directed to ensure a proper opportunity of hearing is afforded to the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that its observations were not on merits and the AO should decide independently. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistake of its counsel and condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that once an amount is written off as irrecoverable, no further proof is required to substantiate the claim, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistake of its counsel and condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a technical mistake by the assessee's counsel in choosing the wrong sub-section for the application. Citing various High Court and ITAT judgments, the Tribunal ruled that such technical mistakes should not deny the assessee a legitimate claim.
The Tribunal condoned the 10-day delay in filing the appeals. It dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeals by filing an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, within the prescribed limitation period, if they are unable to fully avail the benefits of the Scheme due to technicalities.
The Tribunal condoned the 10-day delay in filing the appeals. It dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeals by filing an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, within the prescribed limitation period, if they are unable to fully avail the benefits of the Scheme due to technicalities.