Loading ITAT cases…
381 orders · Page 5 of 8
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal held that levying late fees under Section 234E for TDS statements pertaining to periods before June 1, 2015, was invalid as there was no enabling provision under Section 200A of the Act at that time.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to furnish relevant documentary evidence.
The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order rejecting the delay condonation petition. Since the assessee did not provide any representation or justification for the delay, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal granted one final opportunity to the assessee to furnish necessary details before the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the interest of justice and fair play.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued notices through the ITBA Portal which were not received by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, including condoning the delay and adjudicating the issue on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the FAA, finding sufficient cause. It also admitted an additional legal ground regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice, holding it to be barred by limitation and quashing the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the higher tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE, as amended, was prospective and not applicable to AY 2017-18 for transactions prior to April 1, 2017. Therefore, the tax rate should be 30%.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the FAA, finding sufficient cause. It also admitted an additional legal ground regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice, holding it to be barred by limitation and quashing the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay before dismissing the appeal. The delay was condoned in the interest of substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 06.04.2022 was beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 149 of the Act, as the six-year period would have expired on 31.03.2022. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted the lack of representation before the CIT(A) and the need for proper assistance. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file evidence and comply with notices.
The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to issue notice and the assessee must comply, or the CIT(A) should pass an order based on available material.
The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to appear and present their case with supporting evidence.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file documentary evidence.
The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's delay condonation petition, finding the explanation for the delay to be incorrect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued notices through the ITBA Portal which were not received by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, including condoning the delay and adjudicating the issue on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without properly considering the assessee's explanation. The uncontroverted affidavit regarding personal and health issues should have been accepted.
The Tribunal held that a mere difference between two sets of third-party, system-generated data does not automatically lead to the conclusion of unexplained expenditure. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition as the AO failed to establish actual incurrence of expenditure and its unexplained nature.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance entirely by relying on a previous order without considering all evidence. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) selectively used statements and ignored the assessee's right to cross-examine witnesses, leading to an incorrect conclusion.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 7,10,37,643/- as unexplained money under Section 69A. The assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the nature and source of the substantial bank credits with cogent evidence.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, granted a last opportunity to present the case before the AO. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 15,000 to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, granted a last opportunity to present the case before the AO. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not estimate income without rejecting the books of account as per Section 145. It also found that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the nature and source of credits related to fixed deposit maturity proceeds.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay, citing ill-health due to the Corona Pandemic, to be bonafide. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition and adjudication on merits.
The tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to comply with notices and furnish evidence.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was beyond the specified time limit, making the reassessment invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for its issuance was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as required by Section 151(ii) for notices issued beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form No. 67 or claiming a lesser amount is a procedural lapse and should not defeat the substantive claim of FTC. Following a subsequent rectification order by the AO, the full FTC was granted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from participating in the proceedings due to non-receipt of notices. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the delay petition and, if condoned, to examine the merits of the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The appeal was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides necessary details.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated and completed in the name of a deceased person are void ab initio and a nullity in the eyes of law. Such a defect is not curable, and proceedings must be initiated against the legal representative as per Section 159 of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that while invoices and debtor details were submitted, ledger copies and confirmations were missing. To ensure natural justice, the appeal was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person without substituting the legal representative is bad in law and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment order and the subsequent appeal arising from it lack legal sanctity.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The appeal was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision after calling for necessary details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's serious cardiac ailments and medical treatment. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's demise and the legal heirs' lack of knowledge. The appeal was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment, providing one more opportunity to the legal heirs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances. It held that while the assessee's approach was casual, restoring the matter to the AO would serve the interest of justice and fair play.
The Tribunal held that the AO incorrectly allowed only 100% of the certified capital expenditure instead of the 200% deductible under Section 35(2AB). The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of transfer pricing adjustments based on previous decisions and the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were duly recorded in the assessee's regular books of account, which were not rejected. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash through opening balance, bank withdrawals, and cash sales, and thus the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO incorrectly allowed only 100% of the certified capital expenditure instead of the 200% deductible under Section 35(2AB). The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of transfer pricing adjustments based on previous decisions and the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were satisfactorily explained by the sale of property and loan repayment, supported by documentary evidence. The AO's addition was based on incorrect facts and unsupported assumptions, and the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by adjudicating the appeal on merits without condoning the delay. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Section 246A due to the prior Section 264 revision was incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the delay condonation petition. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the peculiar circumstances and the conflicting statements, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of evidence. The assessee was directed to provide proper documentary evidence and cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's health issues and reliance on counsel, decided to grant one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the delay petition and, if condoned, for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the appeal back to the AO. The AO was directed to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with the law, giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their claims.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the company being struck off and lack of personnel. It remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to provide necessary details.
The Tribunal noted that notices from the CIT(A) were sent to a wrong email ID and that the assessee, a cancer survivor with health issues, was dependent on counsel who did not handle the matter properly. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause and in the interest of natural justice. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after calling for necessary details.