Loading ITAT cases…
345 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal condoned the 144-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the non-compliance before Ld. CIT(A) was not willful and partly due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Recognizing the Ld. CIT(A)'s enhancement and the need for the assessee's cooperation on additions under Sections 69A and 80P, the Tribunal remanded the matter for both assessment years back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, granting the assessee another opportunity to submit evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the FAA's order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. While deprecating the assessee's attitude, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted to the FAA for fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made an addition without sufficient evidence and that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal relied on various High Court judgments to support its decision.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the availability of cash from business transactions and that the excess stock discrepancies were adequately explained. The additions made by the AO were therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, a Regional Rural Bank, should be treated as a co-operative society for the purpose of Section 80P deduction, following previous decisions. The interest on income tax refund was also held to be eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153C requires a proper recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that the seized material belongs to and is incriminating against the other person. Mere suspicion or jottings in a diary without corroborative evidence are insufficient to sustain additions.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issue on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was barred by limitation as it fell outside the six-year window from the date of recording the satisfaction note. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment was based on a diary without corroborative evidence and that the satisfaction note was recorded after a considerable delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer was not specific and lacked objective application of mind. The seized diary alone was insufficient to establish money-lending activity without corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance and gap between certain entries in the seized notebooks should be ignored. It further directed that an estimation of 4% of gross receipts should be considered as unaccounted income, directing the AO to re-compute accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee (State Bank of India) was rightly considered in default for not deducting TDS on LTC payments involving foreign travel. The exemption under Section 10(5) is not available for foreign travel, and the bank's reliance on court orders did not absolve it of its TDS obligation during periods without specific stays.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not proper or independent. It lacked objective satisfaction based on material evidence linking the seized diary to the assessee's undisclosed income.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for cash shortage, finding it used for business expenses and not claimed by the assessee. For excess stock, the Tribunal agreed that evidence for purchases was provided and that unrecorded stock was already offered in the return, thus no addition was sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was barred by limitation as it fell outside the six-year window from the recording of the satisfaction note. It also noted that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of diary entries without corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a letter requesting withdrawal of the appeal because they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The assessee provided a copy of Form 2 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax under the scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn. However, the Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to reinstate the appeal if their application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, was not accepted. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without addressing the merits of the addition under Section 69A. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the AO to decide on merits after providing a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who is directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the CIT(A) dismissed the quantum and penalty appeals ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Addl. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction based on the return being filed beyond the due date, thus making it ineligible under Section 80AC. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that a condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) was pending before the CCIT, Coimbatore, and that the Addl. CIT(A) had not considered this fact. The Tribunal found that the matter required reconsideration in light of the pending condonation petition. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the Addl. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after the decision of the CCIT, Coimbatore. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the matter on merits, especially given the reopened assessment involving factual issues. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the Addl. CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction based on the return not being filed within the due date, and consequently, Section 80AC of the Act. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that a condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) was pending before the CCIT, Coimbatore, and that the Addl. CIT(A) had not taken this into account. The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the return was attributed to the auditor not completing the audit by the due date. Considering the pending condonation petition, the Tribunal was of the view that the matter required reconsideration. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the Addl. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal after the decision of the CCIT, Coimbatore. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. The matter was remanded back to the AO to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and decided it on merits. The matter was remanded back to the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the Addl. CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction on the grounds that the return was not filed within the due date, making the deduction impermissible under Section 80AC. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that a condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) was pending before the CCIT, Coimbatore, and that the Addl. CIT(A) had not taken this fact into account. The Tribunal also noted that the delay in filing the return was attributed to the auditor not completing the audit by the due date. Considering the pendency of the condonation petition, the Tribunal was of the view that the matter required reconsideration. Accordingly, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the Addl. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal after the decision of the CCIT, Coimbatore. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the proceedings before both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. While deprecating the assessee's attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) due to lack of proper opportunity of being heard for the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after affording the assessee due opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of non-compliance without adjudicating the merits of the additions. The Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the orders and remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the CIT(A) dismissed the quantum and penalty appeals ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in obtaining the audit report, as the audit process was dependent on the Co-operative Department and the auditor appointed by them, over which the assessee had no control. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was cancelled.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) decided the appeal without considering the pending condonation of delay petition before the CCIT. Therefore, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh, de novo adjudication after the CCIT's decision on the condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that the FAA has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. The order of the FAA was set aside. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte without proper verification. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte without proper verification. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking section 263 as the AO had made due inquiries and accepted the assessee's submissions after considering the replies. A second view cannot be taken under section 263 on the same facts already discussed and accepted in the original assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, accepted the assessee's explanation of being engaged in social work, and found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity.