Loading ITAT cases…
408 orders · Page 3 of 9
The Tribunal held that ₹12,50,000/- from cash sales was explained as it was already part of the disclosed income and books were not rejected. The issue of ₹12,50,000/- from partner capital introduction was remanded for verification of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the cash deposits from cash withdrawals, cash gifts from brothers, and income from real estate business. The AO's addition was based on irrelevant considerations.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid as the AO lacked tangible material beyond the original assessment records. The reopening was based on a review of existing information rather than new material, failing to meet the requirements of Section 147.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if dismissed for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10-IE for the immediately preceding year is sufficient to claim the benefit of Section 115BAC for subsequent years. A fresh filing is not required if the option was validly exercised previously.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition under Section 68 was not sustainable as the assessee's books of account were not rejected, and no discrepancy was found in purchase and sales quantities or VAT returns. The Tribunal also noted that making an addition under Section 68 when the amounts were already disclosed in the Profit & Loss Account would amount to a double addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity to present their case before the AO due to circumstances including the pandemic and email delivery issues. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without any supporting material, relying solely on the assessee's statement of facts and grounds of appeal. This action was deemed perverse.
The Tribunal found that the AO erred in adopting Rs. 5.25 crores as the cost of the property, as the SFT entries in Form-26AS appeared to be duplicated. The assessee has provided evidence to support his claim that the property was purchased by the firm for Rs. 1.75 crores, with his share being Rs. 87.50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid because the AO did not have tangible material to reopen the scrutiny assessment and did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The reopening was considered an impermissible 'change of opinion'.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating the cause was bona fide and the assessee did not deliberately delay filing. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order, being consequential to the assessment, should also be restored to the AO for de novo proceedings. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's demise and the difficulties faced by the legal heirs, restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- per case was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion and the information was available during the original assessment. Furthermore, the notice for reopening was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of an affidavit from the father-in-law confirming the gift. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of the gift and its regular nature over previous/succeeding years.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty appeals were also remitted for fresh decision.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision and held that the notice for reopening the assessment was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, which was a jurisdictional defect. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of unawareness of online proceedings and reliance on counsel, granted one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after calling for necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the eligibility of the Section 80P deduction should be decided based on the outcome of the condonation petition filed under Section 119. The appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits after the CBDT's decision on the condonation application.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without discussing the grounds of appeal, facts, and submissions. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity due to reliance on counsel and lack of awareness of online proceedings, decided to grant one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. The appeal was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment after calling for necessary details.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not provide specific details of the alleged TDS default to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the AO to provide these details and give the assessee an opportunity to respond.
The Tribunal held that since the audit report was made available to the AO before the completion of assessment proceedings, and there was no mala fide intention, the penalty under Section 271B was not warranted. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision with identical facts.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity due to lack of proper representation, decided to remit the appeal back to the AO. The AO is directed to call for necessary details and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 was wrongly invoked as the addition was based on bank deposits, not book entries. It also found Section 69A inapplicable as the cash collections and deposits were recorded in the assessee's books. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of the deposits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus under Section 68 by providing evidence of employment and salary remittances from China. The addition made by the AO was based on suspicion and surmises, and therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the allowability of interest on borrowings, which were treated as unexplained, needs to be decided along with the issue of the borrowings themselves being unexplained.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were time-barred as they were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 275 of the Income Tax Act. The TOLA Act 2020 could not be leveraged by the Revenue in this case.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's demise and the difficulties faced by the legal heirs, restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- per case was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the acceptance of the merchant banker's valuation method for determining the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the shares under Section 50CA. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to gross up the tax liability borne by the buyer and add it to the FMV. The Tribunal noted that the actual consideration received by the assessee was USD 80 lakhs, equivalent to Rs. 58,95,82,398/-. The assessee had also added the grossed-up tax liability, resulting in Rs. 63,81,18,000/-. The Tribunal found that the variation between the sale consideration offered to tax and the FMV did not exceed 10% of the sale consideration. Furthermore, when the actual consideration is substituted by FMV under Section 50CA, adding the grossed-up tax liability is not permissible as it gets subsumed within the FMV. Therefore, the AO was directed to compute capital gains by adopting the sale consideration as shown by the assessee, with no further additions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty appeals were also remitted for fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty appeals were also remitted for fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the acceptance of the merchant banker's valuation method for determining the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the shares under Section 50CA. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to gross up the tax liability borne by the buyer and add it to the FMV. The Tribunal noted that the actual consideration received by the assessee was USD 80 lakhs, equivalent to Rs. 58,95,82,398/-. The assessee had also added the grossed-up tax liability, resulting in Rs. 63,81,18,000/-. The Tribunal found that the variation between the sale consideration offered to tax and the FMV did not exceed 10% of the sale consideration. Furthermore, when the actual consideration is substituted by FMV under Section 50CA, adding the grossed-up tax liability is not permissible as it gets subsumed within the FMV. Therefore, the AO was directed to compute capital gains by adopting the sale consideration as shown by the assessee, with no further additions.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were time-barred as they were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 275 of the Income Tax Act. The TOLA Act 2020 could not be leveraged by the Revenue in this case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty appeals were also remitted for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit and no constitutional validity was involved, thus the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were null and void because the AO failed to obtain approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii) of the Act, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the sufficient cause shown by the assessee. It decided to restore the matter to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was admitted for hearing on its merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's reasons. While deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as a last opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting sufficient cause for belated filing. It also observed that the impugned orders were ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, restored the matters to the CIT(E) for a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the assessee and the lack of knowledge of the legal heirs. The matter was restored to the FAA for a fresh adjudication to provide an opportunity for effective representation.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, granted a last opportunity for the assessee to present its case. This was done in the interest of justice and fair play, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting sufficient cause for belated filing. It also observed that the impugned orders were ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, restored the matters to the CIT(E) for a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting sufficient cause for belated filing. It also observed that the impugned orders were ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, restored the matters to the CIT(E) for a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the sufficient cause shown by the assessee. It decided to restore the matter to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
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. 25,000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, granted one last opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the AO. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, granted one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for consideration of a proper delay condonation petition with supporting evidence.