Loading ITAT cases…
326 orders · Page 6 of 7
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for commission expenses and customs duty payments. The AO's disallowances were based on insufficient grounds.
The Tribunal held that taxes paid in foreign jurisdictions, even if not eligible for relief under Section 90 or 91, cannot be claimed as a deduction under Section 37(1). Section 40(a)(ii) unequivocally prohibits the deduction of any tax levied on profits or gains of business.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's conduct before the AO was unsatisfactory and that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by entertaining additional evidence. To meet the ends of justice, the assessee was given one last opportunity to present its case before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for not filing the audit report, such as the part-time accountant leaving without notice, did not constitute a reasonable cause. The Tribunal found the assessee liable for the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative undertook to furnish all details if given an opportunity. Considering the facts, evidences filed in the paper book, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file documentary evidence to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal determined that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and adjudicating the case on merits. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits, subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal noted that additional evidence of agricultural produce sale was submitted and that these documents required examination by the AO. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that the Section 154 rectification order was beneficial to the assessee and did not cause any injury. It held that the grounds challenging the addition of Rs. 2,92,239/-, which emanated from an earlier assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B, could not be contested in an appeal against the Section 154 order. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order deciding on merits is essential for an appellate authority. To meet the ends of justice, the assessee should be given one last opportunity to present its case. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal found an inadvertent error in the CIT(A)'s order, which, despite relying on a Jaipur tribunal's decision, confirmed the AO's finding. The Tribunal agreed with the Jaipur tribunal's decision and set aside the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal held that surcharge is leviable only when the total income exceeds Rs. 50 lacs. Since the assessee's income was below Rs. 50 lacs, the levy of surcharge was not applicable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's absence and the lack of compliance with notices. However, considering the death of the assessee's husband, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for one more opportunity to present details.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the commercial block's built-up area exceeded the permissible limit as per the amended provisions. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to be correct and rejected the assessee's arguments regarding consistency and res-judicata.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the commercial block's built-up area exceeded the permissible limit as per the amended provisions. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to be correct and rejected the assessee's arguments regarding consistency and res-judicata.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the commercial block's built-up area exceeded the permissible limit as per the amended provisions. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to be correct and rejected the assessee's arguments regarding consistency and res-judicata.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the commercial block's built-up area exceeded the permissible limit as per the amended provisions. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to be correct and rejected the assessee's arguments regarding consistency and res-judicata.
The tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's explanation and the lack of serious objections from the Revenue. The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter de novo, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and evidence.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were decided against the assessee due to non-compliance, and the CIT(A) did not decide the issue on merits. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to substantiate their case.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of both lower authorities, noting a lack of proper opportunity of being heard and a non-speaking order from the AO. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication de novo, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000 per appeal (total Rs. 20,000) for non-compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the lower authorities' ex-parte orders were not speaking orders. Consequently, the case was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a fresh opportunity to present their case and comply with notices.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of both lower authorities, noting a lack of proper opportunity of being heard and a non-speaking order from the AO. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication de novo, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000 per appeal (total Rs. 20,000) for non-compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons bonafide. Considering the circumstances and the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, subject to payment of costs by the assessee.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee is a senior citizen and the delay was not willful. The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed it to readjudicate the matter de novo after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A, treating demonetization period deposits as unexplained income, was not adequately justified without rejecting the assessee's books of account. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-verification.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest and dividend income from co-operative banks, citing Madras High Court judgments. However, it upheld the restriction of deduction under Section 80P(2)(c) to Rs. 50,000/- (under 80P(2)(c)(ii)), as the society was engaged in activities beyond its primary classification, as per a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided adequate "source of source" documentation for the gifts from family members, including details of jewel loans and land sale advances, which were not rebutted by the Revenue. The Tribunal also determined that the remaining unexplained amount of ₹4,38,000 was justified by the assessee's salary and his wife's tuition fee income, which the AO had rejected without proper examination. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that no additions were maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in combining ESI and PF deductions to arrive at the 32% figure. The AO failed to examine the calculations employee-wise as mandated by Section 36(1)(iv) and Rule 87, which considers the contribution for the 'same employee'.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons bonafide. Considering the circumstances and the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, subject to payment of costs by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided details of loss from Future & Options transactions, which the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had ignored. The Tribunal found merit in the argument that Future & Options transactions and share trading are distinct and should be considered separately. Since the assessee's response dated 22.12.2017 was not considered, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the order was passed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee, and the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were properly accounted for in the assessee's cash book, and the books of account were not rejected or found defective. Since the cash was generated from business activities and the assessee had no other income source, adding the amount again would constitute impermissible double taxation. Consequently, the addition of Rs.1.98 Crore as unexplained money was deleted, and the AO was directed to re-compute the income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings were supported by bank statements and the principal's statements, confirming the assessee's business model of earning commission. The grounds regarding Rule 46A violation were not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) as own funds exceeded investments. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to re-compute Rule 8D(2)(iii) disallowance by excluding investments not yielding exempt income and affirmed that Section 14A disallowance cannot be made for book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal ruled that the penalty was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the original assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). Citing a Supreme Court precedent, this omission vitiates the penalty. The Tribunal also dismissed the CIT(A)'s argument regarding Section 271(1B) as no specific direction for penalty initiation was present in the assessment order.
The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal. The Department's representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal allowed the request.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, noting the general relaxation of compliance provisions under the "Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions of the Act, 2020)" (TOLA) and Supreme Court orders during the Covid-19 pandemic. It directed the CIT(E) to accept the belated report.
The Tribunal noted that two appeals were filed for the same order. The assessee's representative requested to withdraw the duplicate appeal, which was permitted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent and the Karnataka High Court's decision in Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ITO, held that interest income earned from investments in banks, attributable to the business of providing credit facilities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the JAO under Section 148A and 148 were invalid and bad in law because they were issued contrary to the mandatory faceless scheme notified under Section 151A of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order and the penalty levied were also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a plausible explanation for the source of the SBNs, supported by audited financials and customer details. The Tribunal found no significant change in cash deposit patterns compared to previous years and set aside the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction as the AO relied solely on the survey report without conducting independent inquiries. The additions were therefore not substantiated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable and showing sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. It acknowledged that notices were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the Supreme Court's suo-motu order extending limitation periods should benefit the assessees. Therefore, the non-compliance with the AO's notices was excused. For the ends of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to give the assessees one more opportunity before the AO to prove the nature and source of the cash deposit of Rs. 20,01,000/-. Relying on the decision in Tin Box Company vs. CIT (SC), the assessments were restored de novo before the AO. The Tribunal directed that since the bank account is a joint account of husband and wife, if one assessee proves the nature and source of the deposit, no addition should be made in the hands of the other. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the JAO under Section 148A and 148 were invalid and bad in law because they were issued contrary to the mandatory faceless scheme notified under Section 151A of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order and the penalty levied were also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The reasoning was based on the nature of the assessee as a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, run by individuals not computer savvy, which caused the delay in both e-verification and filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's claim under Section 80P(2) should not be denied on a technical ground. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)'s file. Furthermore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to await the decision of the Ld.CCIT regarding the application for condoning the delay in e-verifying the return. After that decision, the CIT(A) is to decide the appeal on merits concerning the Section 80P(2) claim, after hearing the assessee and considering the necessary evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable and showing sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. It acknowledged that notices were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the Supreme Court's suo-motu order extending limitation periods should benefit the assessees. Therefore, the non-compliance with the AO's notices was excused. For the ends of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to give the assessees one more opportunity before the AO to prove the nature and source of the cash deposit of Rs. 20,01,000/-. Relying on the decision in Tin Box Company vs. CIT (SC), the assessments were restored de novo before the AO. The Tribunal directed that since the bank account is a joint account of husband and wife, if one assessee proves the nature and source of the deposit, no addition should be made in the hands of the other. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, noting that a statement recorded under Section 133A has no evidentiary value for making an addition, as per Supreme Court precedent. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation regarding the software non-integration plausible and also observed that the assessee's net profit ratio for the year indicated the inclusion of the stock difference in its returned income. Consequently, no further addition was warranted.
The Tribunal condoned a 5-day delay in filing the appeal, holding that an inadvertent error in selecting the wrong sub-clause should not deny the assessee's right to renewal. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the application was remanded for processing as if filed under the correct Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), with directions to grant renewal after providing an opportunity of hearing and seeking necessary documents.