Loading ITAT cases…
268 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal held that orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) while giving effect to appellate orders are made under Section 143 or 144 of the Act, making them appealable under Section 246(c). Therefore, the FAA's dismissal was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the appeal did not fall under any exceptions to the CBDT Circular and was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
Following judicial precedent, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is instructed to reconsider the assessee's contention regarding the incorrect form submission (Form 10AB instead of Form 10A) and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case. This was subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000 per appeal as cost to the 'Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority'.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued by the JAO, not in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, making it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order and consequential penalties were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued by the JAO, not in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, making it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order and consequential penalties were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued by the JAO, not in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, making it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order and consequential penalties were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148A and 148 was issued in contravention of the e-assessment scheme, which mandates automated allocation and faceless proceedings. Therefore, the notice and consequential orders are vitiated.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claims regarding the sale and purchase of securities and the 'statement of reportable account' required factual verification. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted these additions back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal deprecated the assessee's non-response but, in the interest of justice, provided one more opportunity to represent their case. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E), and the assessee was directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, including Provident Fund statements and bank withdrawals, to explain the source of the cash deposits. The argument of a time gap between withdrawal and deposit was deemed insufficient to disregard the evidence, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2019-20, the disallowance of development expenses was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination. For AY 2020-21, it was held that the income offered during survey was already included in the return, thus the addition was deleted.
During the hearing, the assessee's representative submitted a request to withdraw the appeal, which was also endorsed in the appeal file. Considering this, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2019-20, the disallowance of development expenses was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination. For AY 2020-21, it was held that the income offered during survey was already included in the return, thus the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not issued in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, as it was issued by the JAO and not through the faceless mechanism. Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the notice and consequential orders were set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case. This was subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000 per appeal as cost to the 'Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority'.
The tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the NFAC was bad in law, as it was not valid when the notice and order under sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Act were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance with CIT(A) notices, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal held that a legal ground can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Relying on the decision in TVS Credit Services Ltd. v. DCIT, the Tribunal found that the assessment order passed by the NFAC's assessment unit was invalid because the notice and order under Section 148A(d)/148 were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the stipulated date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's bonafide belief that a separate appeal was not required for the assessment order, after pursuing the rectification remedy, constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. The FAA's dismissal of the appeal solely on the ground of delay was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity and remitted the appeal back to the AO for fresh consideration of additions/disallowances. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was also levied on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the erroneous claim, subsequently admitted and tax paid, did not fit the instances of misreporting under Section 270A(9). Following precedent, the Tribunal found that the AO should have exercised discretion not to impose penalty.
The Tribunal held that an order passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the directions of the appellate authorities is an order of assessment and is appealable under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. The reasoning of the CIT(A) for dismissing the appeal as not maintainable was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not issued in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, as it was issued by the JAO and not the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal deprecated the assessee's non-response but, in the interest of justice, provided one more opportunity to represent their case. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E), and the assessee was directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to provide evidence but noted that the co-owner's case for the identical land was accepted as agricultural by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the AO for factual verification, directing the AO to obtain necessary details from the assessee and decide on merits, specifically considering the assessment order of the co-owner.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deprecated the assessee's non-chalant attitude but, in the interest of justice and equity, restored the matter to the FAA. The assessee is directed to file a proper condonation application with specific reasons, and the FAA shall consider the merits of the appeals if satisfied with the reasons for delay, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal held that the FAA has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. The FAA is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the application should be considered under the newly amended provisions of Section 80G, which allow applications to be filed any time after commencement of activities. The CIT(E) was directed to re-evaluate the application.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deprecated the assessee's non-chalant attitude but, in the interest of justice and equity, restored the matter to the FAA. The assessee is directed to file a proper condonation application with specific reasons, and the FAA shall consider the merits of the appeals if satisfied with the reasons for delay, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT accepted the assessee's explanation and medical certificate as reasonable cause for the delay. It condoned the 45-day delay, set aside the FAA's order, and remitted the case back to the FAA to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that the dispute had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the original assessment or the grounds of appeal, as the matter was resolved by the withdrawal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and equity, the matter should be restored to the FAA. The assessee was directed to file a condonation application with evidence, and if satisfied, the FAA should consider the issue on merits after providing a hearing.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and equity, the matter should be restored to the FAA. The assessee was directed to file a condonation application with evidence, and if satisfied, the FAA should consider the issue on merits after providing a hearing.
The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, all claims not part of the plan, including statutory dues, stand extinguished. The appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, all claims not part of the plan, including statutory dues, stand extinguished. The appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's reasons including medical issues, change of representative, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, providing the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's reasons including medical issues, change of representative, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, providing the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's reasons including medical issues, change of representative, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, providing the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's reasons including medical issues, change of representative, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, providing the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's reasons including medical issues, change of representative, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, providing the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was unsustainable as the gifts were received from relatives through registered settlement deeds, and the identity and genuineness of the transactions were established. Section 56(2)(x) also excludes such gifts from taxation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's reasonable cause and lack of awareness. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's reasons including medical issues, change of representative, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, providing the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the assessee's undertaking to cooperate, remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This was subject to a cost of ₹.20,000/- to be paid to the State Legal Aid Authority.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice u/s. 148A(b) without providing the mandatory minimum period of seven days for response is contrary to law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on such a notice are liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make an addition for a reason not recorded in the notice for reopening, even if it comes to notice during reassessment proceedings. The addition made under Section 40A(3) was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal directed the AO to tax only the profit element (8%) on receipts from Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd. and confirmed the disallowance of expenses claimed against LIC receipts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's consultant's lack of awareness of the CIT(A) order. While noting the assessee's negligence in not responding to notices from both the AO and CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to meet the ends of justice. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.