Loading ITAT cases…
326 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the current appeals, acknowledging the Managing Director's personal hardships. In the interest of justice and fair play, it remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard, noting the non-receipt of hearing notices for the original appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission of not receiving notices and the importance of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the AO for denovo assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) omitted to consider the claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) despite allowing exemption under Sections 11 & 12. The Tribunal found that the issues regarding the inclusion of building fund in gross receipts and the depreciation claim required re-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the Addl/JCIT(A) and directed the Addl/JCIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. For the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, directing the CIT(A) to adjudicate the matters on merits. The assessee was instructed to provide all evidence and documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed a condonation of delay application for filing the return of income, which was pending. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO to await the outcome of the condonation application.
The Tribunal noted that the cash deposits were made in an account operated by the assessee and accounted for in the books of his father's poultry business. While the father had provided confirmation of a loan, the Tribunal, to cut short controversy, estimated 25% of the cash deposits as not out of poultry business income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the DTVSV Scheme and therefore treated the appeal as dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the DTVSV resolution failed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and ruled that interest income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., it held that unless the Co-operative Bank (where the investment was made) possesses an RBI license for public banking, the deduction cannot be denied. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 41,93,070/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 276 days, noting the assessee's rural background and unfamiliarity with e-mail and computers led to the delay. The Tribunal set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's explanation and the fact that they were a primary agricultural co-operative society unfamiliar with computers and email. The Tribunal further noted that the Ld.CIT(A) had not decided the grounds of appeal on merits and set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order, restoring the appeal to the Ld.CIT(A)'s file for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. For the ends of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's rural background and lack of familiarity with technology, which led to them being unaware of the proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 42 days in filing the present appeal before it. It also decided to restore the case back to the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation application afresh along with supporting evidences, considering the assessee's financial constraints and prior litigations.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the non-taxability of freight payments in India. Reliance on certain board instructions and case laws was found to be misplaced due to differing facts. The addition made by the AO was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the non-taxability of freight payments in India. Reliance on certain board instructions and case laws was found to be misplaced due to differing facts. The addition made by the AO was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay were not sufficient. The Supreme Court's decision on extension of limitation was found not applicable as the appeal period had expired much before the specified dates. The Tribunal also distinguished the facts from a High Court ruling cited by the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issues of income from construction, family expenses, and unexplained capital credit back to the AO for re-examination, noting issues with estimation without defects in books or lack of proper opportunity. However, the addition of estimated interest on loan was confirmed. Identical issues for AY 2013-14 were also partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned a 4-day delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld.CIT(E), restoring the application to the Ld.CIT(E) for adjudication on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 42 days in filing the present appeal before them, finding sufficient cause. However, regarding the appeal before the CIT(A), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the substantial delay of 1393 days, despite the assessee providing reasons and subsequently evidence. The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 102 days, finding that the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the delay before the CIT(A). The issues were restored to the AO to await the outcome of the quantum assessment appeal.
The tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's decision to opt for the DTVSV scheme, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It provided the assessee the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal should the resolution under the DTVSV scheme not materialize.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. The CIT(A) had correctly noted the lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistency in the assessee's statements, agreeing with the assessee's revised version.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the Rs. 11,10,000/- as business receipt and apply a net profit rate of 12% on the combined amount of Rs. 99,96,887/- and Rs. 11,10,000/- as business income. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the non-taxability of freight payments in India. Reliance on certain board instructions and case laws was found to be misplaced due to differing facts. The addition made by the AO was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for remittances to be classified as FIS, the services must make available technical knowledge, expertise, skill, know-how, or processes to the recipient, allowing them to use it independently. Based on previous decisions with identical facts, the Tribunal ruled that the services provided did not meet this 'make available' clause.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the reason for delay, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have waited for the outcome of the condonation application for the delayed return before deciding on the deduction. Therefore, the appeal is set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the appropriate authority decides on the condonation application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a denovo hearing. The CIT(A) was directed to afford proper opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and documents before deciding the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the total cash credits were ₹.18,07,000/- instead of ₹.23,07,231/-. While allowing benefit for withdrawals, the request for set off of opening capital was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were conducted in violation of natural justice, with the assessee not being given adequate time and opportunity to respond. The ITAT set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the ex-parte nature of the order and the possibility of technical glitches in receiving notices. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for reconsideration on merits, directing the CIT(E) to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were conducted in violation of natural justice, with the assessee not being given adequate time and opportunity to respond. The ITAT set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, the penalty levied under Section 270A was confirmed as the income was not initially disclosed. However, for AY 2019-20, the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was reversed as the financial year was not concluded at the time of the search and transactions were recorded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, directing the CIT(A) to adjudicate the matters on merits. The assessee was instructed to provide all evidence and documents.
The Tribunal restored the issues of income from construction, family expenses, and unexplained capital credit back to the AO for re-examination, noting issues with estimation without defects in books or lack of proper opportunity. However, the addition of estimated interest on loan was confirmed. Identical issues for AY 2013-14 were also partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, the penalty levied under Section 270A was confirmed as the income was not initially disclosed. However, for AY 2019-20, the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was reversed as the financial year was not concluded at the time of the search and transactions were recorded.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were legally initiated as per amended provisions. However, the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii) was not justified because the stamp duty was paid based on the declared nature of the land as agricultural, and the difference between sale consideration and market value was less than 5%.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and the application for settlement was accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that proceedings against a deceased person do not automatically become void if the legal representative is available and participates in the proceedings. The mention of the deceased's name in the cause title, due to system data, does not vitiate the order.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 14 days in depositing the sale proceeds in the capital gains account scheme was a minor technical lapse. The assessee had fulfilled the substantive conditions for the deduction under Section 54.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form 10CCB is directory and not mandatory, and it is sufficient if filed before the assessment is completed. The AO erred in denying the deduction as the assessee had filed the return within the due date and the Form 10CCB was filed before the AO.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for cash withdrawals amounting to Rs. 17,70,000, finding no material to suggest otherwise. However, the explanation for savings of Rs. 2,72,000 was not accepted due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the revised Rule 8D(2), effective from 02.06.2016, applies to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee's arguments regarding sufficient own funds and the applicability of old rules or judicial precedents were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were conducted in violation of natural justice, with the assessee not being given adequate time and opportunity to respond. The ITAT set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned a 4-day delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld.CIT(E), restoring the application to the Ld.CIT(E) for adjudication on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found the assessee's failure to respond reasonable due to the circumstances. Consequently, it set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, mandating an opportunity of hearing for the assessee as per Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, the penalty levied under Section 270A was confirmed as the income was not initially disclosed. However, for AY 2019-20, the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was reversed as the financial year was not concluded at the time of the search and transactions were recorded.