Loading ITAT cases…
180 orders · Page 1 of 4
Considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to plead and prove their case forthwith.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of PF/ESI contributions (Rs. 4,29,357/-) paid within the grace period to the AO for verification. For the notional rental income from unsold flats (Rs. 13,81,464/-), the Tribunal, following the Gujarat High Court and other ITAT decisions, held that such flats, being stock-in-trade, generate 'Income from Business' (Section 28) and not 'Income from House Property' (Section 22/23). As no actual rental income was earned, this addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the power to disallow deductions during processing under Section 143(1)(a) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and could not be retroactively applied by CPC Bangalore for Assessment Year 2018-19. Following precedents, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance and directed the AO to grant the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2).
The Tribunal upheld the re-opening of assessment, stating that as a non-filer, the bank deposits constituted a prima-facie reason for examination, and no error was found in the re-opening procedure. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee sold agricultural land for Rs. 19 lakhs (though stamp duty was paid on Rs. 9.35 lakhs) and that the AO failed to investigate this source. Inferring no other source of income, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance in submitting documents to both the AO and CIT(A). To uphold natural justice, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, providing the assessee a fresh opportunity to present all relevant documents and materials.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without ensuring proper notice service under Section 250, violating principles of natural justice. It also noted the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate core issues regarding the validity of reassessment notice, approval under Section 151, and the merits of the addition. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's illiteracy and unfamiliarity with digital procedures constituted a bona fide reason for the delay. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on technical grounds without appreciating the genuine cause.
The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not sustainable as they were ex-parte and the CIT(A) failed to follow mandatory procedures. The Tribunal set aside both orders and restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the third party (M/s HJM Fuels Pvt. Ltd.) had already disclosed the transactions, including those with the assessee, to the Settlement Commission, and taxes were paid, the same amount cannot be subjected to further addition in the assessee's assessment. The appeal was allowed, recognizing that once an amount is disclosed and taxed by a party before the Settlement Commission, it cannot be added again in another's assessment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found no meaningful rebuttal from the Assessee against the findings of the AO and CIT(A) regarding the unaccounted sales based on the stock shortage. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), finding no reason to interfere with their conclusions.
The Tribunal found procedural irregularities due to non-service of notice under Section 148, violating principles of natural justice, and held the assessment invalid. On merits, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the funds were an advance from ancestral agricultural land sale, substantiated by a Bayana agreement and POA, noting similar treatment for a co-owner. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 10,04,000/- under Section 68 was deleted, and the consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and proper notice was not served. Finding that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6), the Tribunal set aside both the AO's and CIT(A)'s impugned orders and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing and the liberty to raise objections against the re-opening of assessment.
The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., which mandates strict compliance for timely deposit of employee contributions. However, it found that the CIT(A) failed to adequately examine or verify the assessee's claim of technical glitches with supporting evidence. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication to verify all submitted evidence and afford the assessee a proper hearing, strictly adhering to the Supreme Court's precedent.
The tribunal noted the assessee's settlement under the DTVSV Scheme and their desire to withdraw the appeal, to which the Ld. DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte. While acknowledging the assessee's submissions, the Tribunal set aside both orders and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and re-adjudication, deeming it appropriate to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal found procedural irregularities due to non-service of notice under Section 148, violating principles of natural justice, and held the assessment invalid. On merits, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the funds were an advance from ancestral agricultural land sale, substantiated by a Bayana agreement and POA, noting similar treatment for a co-owner. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 10,04,000/- under Section 68 was deleted, and the consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, following its previous orders in similar cases. It held that additions could only be made based on specific incriminating material found during the search, which was absent in this case. Therefore, the additions made by denying the exemption under Section 10(38) were not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, following its previous orders in similar cases. It held that additions could only be made based on specific incriminating material found during the search, which was absent in this case. Therefore, the additions made by denying the exemption under Section 10(38) were not sustainable.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order deficient as it failed to provide specific findings on the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on both the disallowance and the penalty.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), affirming that the assessee had indeed filed Form 10B timely. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s findings to be balanced, logical, and judicious, and therefore, required no interference.
The ITAT condoned the 118-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It was held that the CIT(A) failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee after the communication window was enabled. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide reasonable time to the assessee and for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte nature of both assessment and appellate orders, remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Emphasizing natural justice, the Tribunal directed that the assessee be given a due opportunity of hearing, with an expectation of cooperation from the assessee.
The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte nature of both assessment and appellate orders, remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Emphasizing natural justice, the Tribunal directed that the assessee be given a due opportunity of hearing, with an expectation of cooperation from the assessee.
The tribunal noted that lower authorities confined their findings only to the disputed payment of Rs. 1.25 Cr, without adequately considering the assessee's claim that the original transaction was finalized before Section 194-IA's insertion and that the payment was for enhanced compensation, not consideration for land. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing to consider the transaction's timeline and nature of payment.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the surrendered income was not professional income or income from other sources. Since the AO had examined the issue based on the assessee's reply to a questionnaire, his order could not be considered erroneous simply because the PCIT disagreed with the view taken.
The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal. It confirmed the deletion of additions related to purchases from three parties (Rs. 7.34 crores) as the supporting evidence was already on the AO's record. However, for the remaining three parties, the unconfirmed sundry creditor, and disallowances for freight and advances, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, finding that the CIT(A)'s acceptance of evidence without a remand report constituted a violation of Rule 46A.
The Tribunal dismissed the Section 14A ground as not pressed. It remanded the issues concerning the addition on account of NPA provision written back and interest on seed money to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification. All other connected appeals were also remanded for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the 40-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's illiteracy and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order. It held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity and therefore remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that both authorities passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits. In the interest of natural justice, the cases were remanded to the AO for a fresh decision, with a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the Section 14A ground as not pressed. It remanded the issues concerning the addition on account of NPA provision written back and interest on seed money to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification. All other connected appeals were also remanded for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the Section 14A ground as not pressed. It remanded the issues concerning the addition on account of NPA provision written back and interest on seed money to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification. All other connected appeals were also remanded for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the inordinate delay to be vague and unsubstantiated, noting a lack of day-to-day explanation as required by Supreme Court precedents. The request for condonation of delay was therefore rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the Section 14A ground as not pressed. It remanded the issues concerning the addition on account of NPA provision written back and interest on seed money to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification. All other connected appeals were also remanded for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the Section 14A ground as not pressed. It remanded the issues concerning the addition on account of NPA provision written back and interest on seed money to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification. All other connected appeals were also remanded for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that both authorities passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits. In the interest of natural justice, the cases were remanded to the AO for a fresh decision, with a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
For the land purchase issue, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that TDS under Section 194-IA is applicable on urban land transactions exceeding Rs. 50 Lacs, even if used for agriculture. Regarding advertisement payments, the Tribunal, relying on a prior Delhi Tribunal decision, ruled that payments to advertising agencies are covered under Section 194C, thus directing the AO to delete the demand for short-deduction related to this issue.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 7.66 Lacs in AY 2017-18 was based on projections from a surrender letter and not on unearthing undisclosed assets, therefore it lacks basis. Similarly, the penalty under Section 271AAB for AY 2016-17 was deemed unsustainable as there was no undisclosed income to invoke penalty provisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances made. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified, and the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances made. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified, and the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that additions under Section 153A can only be made based on specific incriminating material found during the search, which was absent in this case. Therefore, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the transactions, including confirmations, financial statements, and invoices. The Tribunal noted that the companies involved in the transactions were not part of the group identified by the third party and that the transactions were duly accounted for.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to present their case. This decision was made considering natural justice and potential communication issues in the faceless assessment system.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles laid down by the Supreme Court. It set aside the quantum appeal to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a de novo assessment, noting the original assessment was on a best judgment basis. Consequently, the penalty appeal was also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the re-assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances made. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified, and the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.
Citing Supreme Court guidelines, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the case for de novo adjudication by the CIT(A), directing the assessee to present their case promptly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances made. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified, and the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 7.66 Lacs in AY 2017-18 was based on projections from a surrender letter and not on unearthing undisclosed assets, therefore it lacks basis. Similarly, the penalty under Section 271AAB for AY 2016-17 was deemed unsustainable as there was no undisclosed income to invoke penalty provisions.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 7.66 Lacs in AY 2017-18 was based on projections from a surrender letter and not on unearthing undisclosed assets, therefore it lacks basis. Similarly, the penalty under Section 271AAB for AY 2016-17 was deemed unsustainable as there was no undisclosed income to invoke penalty provisions.
The Tribunal observed that both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) passed impugned orders without properly considering the material facts, documentary evidence, and submissions made by the assessee. Since the issue was not decided on merit by the lower authorities, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on merit, ensuring due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that the rejection of books was not justified as the assessee maintained regular, audited accounts, had reported sales to VAT authorities, and exhibited consistent profit rates across years without any specific defects being pointed out by the AO. Consequently, the addition of Rs.35.36 Lacs was deleted, and the AO was directed to accept the business income as reflected by the assessee.