Loading ITAT cases…
279 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim that the advances were received as a power agent, with tax liability resting on the property owner. However, lacking conclusive proof of this, the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and for the assessee to submit requisite documents.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024 and had received Form No. 2, acknowledging the settlement of pending tax disputes for both assessment years. The Designated Authority had issued acknowledgments for AY 2014-15 and AY 2016-17. In view of these facts, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal also clarified that it remains open for the assessee to approach the Tribunal with an appropriate application if any prejudice arises concerning the settlement under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024. No specific issue was left undecided.
Recognizing the assessee's negligence but upholding the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity. It set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh consideration, with the condition that the assessee pays Rs.2,000/- to the 'Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority'.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on the assessee's successful opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024, evidenced by the issuance of Form No. 2 by the Designated Authority for the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not object to the assessee's request. The ratio decidendi is that once a taxpayer avails the benefit of a tax settlement scheme like Vivad-se-Vishwas and fulfills the conditions, the pending appeals related to those disputes are to be considered withdrawn. The Tribunal also clarified that it remains open for the assessee to approach the Tribunal with an appropriate application if any prejudice arises concerning the settlement under the scheme. The operative direction was to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that after the amendment to Section 13(9) with effect from 01-04-2016, filing Form No.10 within the due date under Section 139(1) is mandatory, not merely directory. It emphasized that a remedial mechanism for condonation of delay under Section 119 is already available via CBDT Circular No.03/2020. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to consider any condonation application filed by the assessee within three months, failing which the AO's action would be confirmed.
The Tribunal held that artificial segregation of cash deposits during demonetization and other periods was not justified. It also found that the gross profit rate declared by the assessee was 1.74%.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on the assessee's successful opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024, evidenced by the issuance of Form No. 2 by the Designated Authority for the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not object to the assessee's request. The ratio decidendi is that once a taxpayer avails the benefit of a tax settlement scheme like Vivad-se-Vishwas and fulfills the conditions, the pending appeals related to those disputes are to be considered withdrawn. The Tribunal also clarified that it remains open for the assessee to approach the Tribunal with an appropriate application if any prejudice arises concerning the settlement under the scheme. The operative direction was to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment stemmed from a potential misreporting by the Tax Auditor, where the net effect on profit should have been Nil. Accepting the assessee's submission, the issue was remitted back to the Jurisdictional AO for verification.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's negligence but considering the facts of the case. The assessment was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to substantiate their case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee had sufficiently explained the sources of cash deposits from jewel loan redemptions and earlier bank withdrawals, supported by books of accounts and no negative cash balance. The Tribunal also concurred with the grant of telescoping benefit for the seized cash against the additional interest income offered by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on the assessee's successful opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024, evidenced by the issuance of Form No. 2 by the Designated Authority for the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not object to the assessee's request. The ratio decidendi is that once a taxpayer avails the benefit of a tax settlement scheme like Vivad-se-Vishwas and fulfills the conditions, the pending appeals related to those disputes are to be considered withdrawn. The Tribunal also clarified that it remains open for the assessee to approach the Tribunal with an appropriate application if any prejudice arises concerning the settlement under the scheme. The operative direction was to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on the assessee's successful opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024, evidenced by the issuance of Form No. 2 by the Designated Authority for the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not object to the assessee's request. The ratio decidendi is that once a taxpayer avails the benefit of a tax settlement scheme like Vivad-se-Vishwas and fulfills the conditions, the pending appeals related to those disputes are to be considered withdrawn. The Tribunal also clarified that it remains open for the assessee to approach the Tribunal with an appropriate application if any prejudice arises concerning the settlement under the scheme. The operative direction was to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, considering natural justice despite the assessee's negligence, set aside the impugned ex-parte order. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case and supply information.
The Tribunal acknowledged the binding precedent that Section 80AC(ii) disallows deductions under Chapter VIA for belated returns. However, noting that the assessee had filed a condonation application for the delay under Section 119(2)(b) which was pending, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to reconsider the claim based on the outcome of the condonation application.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is not automatic and requires undisclosed income as defined in the section. Mere admission of income, without it being represented by unearthing of incriminating material during search, does not qualify for penalty under this section.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024 and had received Form No. 2, acknowledging the settlement of pending tax disputes for both assessment years. The Designated Authority had issued acknowledgments for AY 2014-15 and AY 2016-17. In view of these facts, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal also clarified that it remains open for the assessee to approach the Tribunal with an appropriate application if any prejudice arises concerning the settlement under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024. No specific issue was left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursement received by the assessee was for warranty expenses related to tractors sold outside India and not fees for technical services taxable in India. The Tribunal relied on the exclusionary clause in Section 9(1)(vii)(b) and the principle that remittances without profit are not taxable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt for the DTVSV Scheme and consequently dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme resolution fails.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision, which relied on the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 where reassessment beyond four years was quashed due to lack of tangible material and a change of opinion by the AO. The Tribunal agreed that the AO had examined the issue during the original assessment.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeal under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted for restoration if the scheme resolution fails.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of employee contributions to PF & ESI due to delayed deposit, citing the Supreme Court's 'Checkmate Services' ruling. However, it held that interest on delayed remittances of TDS, PT, Service Tax, ESI, and PF were compensatory in nature and thus allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, based on the Supreme Court's 'Lachmandas Mathuradas' decision and other pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed during the moratorium period was invalid as per Section 14 of the IBC, 2016. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions, following Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, acting solely as a middleman and not as the recipient in his own right, did not violate Section 269SS. Furthermore, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing appeals due to computer glitches and a lack of knowledge of tax law amendments.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that TDS was not applicable on discounts to prepaid distributors as per the Supreme Court's decision. It also held that TDS was not deductible on year-end provisions reversed in the subsequent year, following High Court rulings. The disallowance of club expenses was also deleted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause for the 90-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's parents' ill-health due to Covid-19. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to resolve the dispute under the DTVSV, 2024, and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Tribunal also granted the assessee the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the resolution under the DTVSV, 2024 fails.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing that the assessee had discharged the onus with documentary evidence. The Tribunal agreed, finding that the AO was not justified in disallowing a significant portion of purchases based on doubts and surmises.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear during both assessment and appellate proceedings. Finding that the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 10,00,000/- without any supporting basis, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, acting solely as a middleman and not as the recipient in his own right, did not violate Section 269SS. Furthermore, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing appeals due to computer glitches and a lack of knowledge of tax law amendments.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 171-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a reasonable cause. Subsequently, due to the assessee's choice to opt for the VSVS Scheme and request for withdrawal, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision for reinstatement if the VSVS application is rejected.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, deeming it appropriate to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity. The case is remanded to the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication of the application in Form 10AB, with directions for the assessee to upload and substantiate its documents.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and considering an undertaking from the assessee's representative, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing, directing that the assessee be provided a proper opportunity to substantiate her case regarding the cash deposits and transactions.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as there was sufficient material found during the survey. However, the ad-hoc disallowances were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to submit evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as there was sufficient material from the survey. However, the ad-hoc disallowances were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides evidence. The addition for renovation was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme resolution fails.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, stating that the survey provided sufficient material for the Assessing Officer to believe income had escaped assessment. However, the matter of ad-hoc disallowances was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order, which levied penalty for 'concealment of income', was not commensurate with the penalty notice and assessment order, which specified 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income'. Thus, the levy of penalty was considered invalid.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed as withdrawn, considering the assessee's election to resolve the dispute under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024. It also granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's resolution fails.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it. Considering the assessee's submission regarding the trustee's unfamiliarity with online operations and the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case to the CIT(E) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's attitude, decided to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to represent their case. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, stating that the survey provided sufficient material for the Assessing Officer to believe income had escaped assessment. However, the matter of ad-hoc disallowances was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, after examining the cash flow statement for FY 2011-12, found that the assessee had sufficient opening cash balance and successfully explained the source of expenses for the 'Land and Improvement'. Consequently, the addition of Rs.6,87,612/- made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing appeals, violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and hear the appeals on merit.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the write-off of bad debts was justified and the income from warehousing should be treated as income from house property. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding unexplained expenditure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing sufficient cause and the principle of advancing substantial justice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing appeals, violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and hear the appeals on merit.
The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees and letters of comfort constitute international transactions, especially after the amendment to Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, adjustments for these are permissible.