Loading ITAT cases…
282 orders · Page 2 of 6
The tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024, the monetary limit for filing appeals before ITAT was revised to ₹60 lakhs. The Ld. DR conceded that the appeal was covered by this circular.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of sale deeds submitted by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the AO to examine these documents and decide the case afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, while noting the assessee's non-cooperation, decided to provide another opportunity for hearing before the AO in the interest of natural justice, subject to payment of costs.
The tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, setting aside the previous orders. The Assessing Officer is to proceed with a denovo adjudication after providing a proper hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer acknowledged the assessee's cash balance of ₹.32,26,718/- as of 08.11.2016. The addition was made purely on suspicion regarding the manner of deposit. Since the assessee provided a plausible reason for depositing in installments and the initial cash balance was undisputed, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the decision on the deduction under Section 80P should await the outcome of the assessee's petition for condonation of delay before the jurisdictional CCIT, as empowered by a CBDT circular.
The Tribunal noted a significant delay of 721 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned due to the assessee's ill-health. Although the assessee failed to comply with multiple notices from the CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the claim for statutory deduction under Section 11(1)(a) cannot be disallowed merely due to the incorrect column entry, especially when it is apparent from the audit report. The incorrect placement of the figure did not negate the claim itself.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order and lacked application of mind. It failed to consider the grounds raised by the assessee regarding procedural legality and the conversion of scrutiny. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment petition and decided to set aside the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without giving reasons for dismissal of the appeal, despite the assessee filing a statement of facts and submissions. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal afresh.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite notices. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders without the assessee's participation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider the sale consideration as per the registered sale deed or Rs.245/- per sq.ft., whichever is higher, for computing long-term capital gains. It also allowed the deduction of Rs.6,12,328/- for court fees. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that the source of Rs.5,07,000/- deposit from agricultural income could not be rejected and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the technical nature of the errors and the interest of justice. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment order and remitted the case to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the claim for statutory deduction under Section 11(1)(a) cannot be disallowed merely due to the incorrect column entry, especially when it is apparent from the audit report. The incorrect placement of the figure did not negate the claim itself.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee had purchased an immovable property and failed to provide details of the source. However, considering the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the AO passed an ex-parte assessment order without considering any expenditure. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company vs CIT, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the ownership of the FD was indeed in question and the assessee had an affidavit stating liability for taxes if ownership is vested back. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the issue after the High Court decides on the ownership.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support their claim of having a substantial opening cash balance. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. This was done because the assessee was not given proper opportunities at both the AO and CIT(A) levels.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-participation in both assessment and appellate proceedings. However, considering the ex-parte nature of the orders, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The tribunal held that if the due date for payment was a holiday, the payment made on the next working day should be considered as within the due date as per the General Clauses Act. The CIT(A) was directed to verify this contention.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence to counter the AO's findings and the hypothesis raised in the SIT report. The order of the AO and the CIT(A) were found to be in order.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 jurisdiction was not valid. The Assessing Officer's actions were based on the prevailing law and jurisdictional High Court decisions at the time of assessment, and subsequent Supreme Court judgments did not make the AO's order erroneous retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly restricted the disallowance. Although the assessee initially provided no evidence to the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) considered the assessee's breakup of expenses submitted in Form 35 and applied a 25% disallowance, which the Revenue could not rebut with evidence.
The Tribunal held that for banking companies, investments are stock-in-trade, and therefore, Section 14A is not applicable for disallowance of expenses related to exempt income. The Tribunal also noted that the PCIT's directions regarding MAT credit and Section 36(1)(viia) were primarily for verification.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte without the assessee's participation. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 41 days which was condoned as the reasons were found to be bonafide. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not receive assistance from the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) and had not availed the opportunities provided. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision proceedings under Section 263 were not exercisable because the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was already pending before the CIT(A)-NFAPC. Citing the High Court judgment in Renuka Philip Vs ITO, the Tribunal found that when an appeal is pending, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 is barred. Therefore, the impugned order of the PCIT was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by CPC under section 143(1) without providing an opportunity to the assessee was not justified. The CIT(A) was also not justified in holding the partnership deed suspicious and confirming the adjustment.
The Tribunal noted that the ownership of the FD was indeed in question and the assessee had an affidavit stating liability for taxes if ownership is vested back. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the issue after the High Court decides on the ownership.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment, as the AO had not verified the source of the cash deposit.
The Tribunal held that the payments were for logistics services and not royalty, as the non-resident company did not have a permanent establishment in India. Therefore, no tax was deductible at source, and the disallowance was incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the return was due to a mandatory statutory audit and that a condonation petition was pending before the CBDT. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider the sale consideration as per the registered sale deed or Rs.245/- per sq.ft., whichever is higher, for computing long-term capital gains. It also allowed the deduction of Rs.6,12,328/- for court fees. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that the source of Rs.5,07,000/- deposit from agricultural income could not be rejected and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the ownership of the FD was indeed in question and the assessee had an affidavit stating liability for taxes if ownership is vested back. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the issue after the High Court decides on the ownership.
The Tribunal held that the primary onus to explain the source of unexplained cash lies with the assessee. Since the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation and had admitted the cash as unaccounted income, the addition made by the AO under section 69A read with section 115BBE was justified. The appeal grounds concerning this addition were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of the logbook solely based on its appearance, without alleging any specific deficiencies or providing an opportunity for rebuttal, was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal found no material to support the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the ownership of the FD was indeed in question and the assessee had an affidavit stating liability for taxes if ownership is vested back. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the issue after the High Court decides on the ownership.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of 5% of the total credit transaction as profit, stating that the assessee failed to provide past profit history to support a lower margin claim.
The Tribunal found that principles of natural justice were not properly followed by the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the appeal to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing the AO to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to substantiate its case without fail.
The Tribunal held that similar issues in a prior assessment year were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of the secondment expenses and to consider the revised return filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s. 148 was validly issued within the time limit. Regarding the addition, it was decided that only the peak credit of Rs. 5,12,007/- should be added, considering the assessee's business of money lending and the AO's treatment in subsequent years.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as prayed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that while the principle of res judicata may not strictly apply to direct taxes, the revenue cannot take inconsistent positions in different years if the material facts remain the same. Since the assessee was granted exemption under section 11 in the preceding assessment year (AY-2014-15) under similar circumstances, and the revenue accepted that decision, it should be extended to the current assessment year (AY-2015-16).
The Tribunal held that the assessee was given ample opportunity to provide evidence and explanations to justify the cash deposits, both before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), and even before the Tribunal. However, the assessee failed to do so.
The Tribunal held that the AO's ex-parte order, treating the entire bank deposit as income without considering expenditure, was not justified. The Tribunal estimated the business income at 15% of the bank deposit.