Loading ITAT cases…
275 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to inordinate and unsubstantiated delays. The assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the late filing.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A enabling the levy of fees under Section 234E was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees for periods prior to this date were not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals on the grounds of limitation. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal adopted the view that favored the assessee, stating that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal adopted the view that favored the assessee, stating that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed an affidavit for condonation of delay which was overlooked by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after considering the condonation of delay.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed an affidavit for condonation of delay which was overlooked by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after considering the condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) overlooked the assessee's cash system of accounting and the provisions of Section 199. TDS credit should be allowed in the year receipts are offered to tax, including unclaimed TDS from earlier years.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not render independent findings and merely endorsed the Assessing Officer's view. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not explain the entire difference. However, a correction in the closing balance from Rs. 23,12,116/- to Rs. 23,92,116/- was identified. Therefore, the addition was restricted to Rs. 10 Lacs.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had passed a rectification order under Section 154, which rendered the appeal infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowances made for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 were incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeals by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. No new material was presented to justify the delay.
The Tribunal observed that the reasons provided for the delay were related to the Section 143(1) intimation and not the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to condone the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, following the Supreme Court's directions regarding pandemic-related delays. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte revision order due to a violation of natural justice and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before rejecting the application. Therefore, the order of the CIT needs to be set aside for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer accepted cash withdrawals as the source for deposits made within a few days, additions for deposits made after a longer gap should not be made without demonstrating that the withdrawn cash was used for other purposes. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present details to the Assessing Officer (AO) and that the legality of the reassessment proceedings was not properly appreciated by the lower appellate authority. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the development of infrastructure facilities and was eligible for 100% depreciation on plant and machinery used for the project, following the CIT(A)'s reasoning and the High Court's directions.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they were not interested in prosecuting it. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, directing that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be given to the assessee.
The tribunal held that the minor delay in filing the return, caused by technical glitches, should not defeat the assessee's claim for carry-forward of losses. The approach should be justice-oriented, condoning such delays.
The Tribunal noted that the onus was on the assessee to prove mutuality, and sufficient evidence was not provided. However, it also observed that the assessee's submissions and documents filed with the appellate authority were not considered. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee's legal heirs due to the assessee's death before assessment proceedings. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO), in the order giving effect to the revision order, made no addition on the subject matter of cash in hand. Consequently, the appeal against the revision order was rendered academic and infructuous.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission regarding the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of Section 14A disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in light of Supreme Court judgments. The addition on account of bad debts written off was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that capital introduced by partners cannot be taxed in the hands of the firm under Section 68, especially when the firm is in its first year of assessment and has not maintained books of account. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) also cannot survive.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) [NFAC] erred in dismissing the appeals based on the VSVS settlement, as the settlement only covered the penalty and not the main assessment. The matter was therefore set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of Section 14A disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in light of Supreme Court judgments. The addition on account of bad debts written off was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has no power to adjudicate a claim not made in the original return or a revised return. Therefore, the rejection of the Section 154 petition was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that wrong advice from a professional constitutes a reasonable cause. It was held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a proper inquiry into the cash deposits, and therefore, the revision order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot enhance the assessment by introducing new issues or sources of income that were not considered by the Assessing Officer. Such powers are not available to the first appellate authority.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) [NFAC] erred in dismissing the appeals based on the VSVS settlement, as the settlement only covered the penalty and not the main assessment. The matter was therefore set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The CIT was directed to allow the assessee an opportunity to furnish details and pass a speaking order on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal. The assessee was advised to approach the appropriate authority for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B.
The Assessing Officer, after re-examining the issue of exempt income from the sale of agricultural land, allowed the assessee's claim. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the double addition of interest income was a clear mistake in filing the return of income. The Assessing Officer was directed to exclude the interest income from the 'income from house property' head.
The Tribunal held that capital introduced by partners cannot be taxed in the hands of the firm under Section 68, especially when the firm is in its first year of assessment and has not maintained books of account. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) also cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 80IB(10) are prospective and do not apply to transactions where the builder agreements and sale deeds were executed before April 1, 2010. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Section 199, allow TDS credit irrespective of the year to which the income relates, and rules cannot override the Act. The CIT(A) also erred in restricting credit to the amount claimed in the return.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause due to the company's liquidation status. The Tribunal also decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be burdened with the task of directing the deductor to file correction statements, as it is beyond their control. The AO should ascertain the correct TDS credit position and grant credit accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not ignore parts of a sworn statement that were in favor of the assessee while using other parts to make an addition. Since the assessee and the purchaser consistently stated the amount was paid to a third party to vacate tenants, and no contrary evidence was produced, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the audit report and return of income. The delay was not due to the fault of the assessee but due to the procedures under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, which were beyond the assessee's control.
The Tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 29,711/-. It deleted the addition under Section 68, finding the explanation for cash deposits acceptable. The disallowance for travelling expenses was restricted to 10% of the claimed amount.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as there was tangible material available to the AO. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the genuineness of the purchase transactions, and the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added back to book profits under Section 115JB, following the Karnataka High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal on grounds of both delay and non-maintainability, as the issues had already been decided.