Loading ITAT cases…
408 orders · Page 7 of 9
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication as a last opportunity, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication as a last opportunity, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal set aside the FAA's order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to furnish necessary documents and substantiate her claims before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P is directly dependent on the outcome of the condonation petition. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after the competent authority decides the condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee's single-year margin of -1.63% for AY 2021-22, when compared to the comparable companies' single-year average margin of -23.9%, meets the ALP, considering the impact of COVID-19 and relying on the decision in Brakes India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT. Regarding management charges, the Tribunal held that the TPO was incorrect in determining ALP at Nil without independent benchmarking and that these charges, being intrinsically linked to the Assessee's core business, cannot be segregated for independent benchmarking. Following precedents like Magneti Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT and Haworth India Pvt Ltd v. DCIT, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made in respect of management charges. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the assessee to be casual in pursuing the matter at all stages and not interested in effectively pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) cannot be mechanically applied when the assessee disputes the entire assessed income and does not admit any taxable income. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) cannot be mechanically applied when the assessee disputes the entire assessed income and does not admit any taxable income. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) cannot be mechanically applied when the assessee disputes the entire assessed income and does not admit any taxable income. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) cannot be mechanically applied when the assessee disputes the entire assessed income and does not admit any taxable income. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits.
The Tribunal held that the ingredients for invoking Section 69 were not satisfied and directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 27,49,22,566/-. The Tribunal also found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made under Section 40A(3).
The Tribunal held that the ingredients for invoking Section 69 were not satisfied and directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 27,49,22,566/-. The Tribunal also found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made under Section 40A(3).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim was bona fide, supported by judicial precedent prevailing at the time of filing the return, and all material facts were disclosed. Therefore, the penalty under Section 270A was not exigible.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the AO failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) before completing the reassessment, even though a belated return was filed.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) cannot be mechanically applied when the assessee disputes the entire assessed income and does not admit any taxable income. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the extraordinary delay of 2853 days, citing sufficient cause due to the exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which included business-related documents. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication.
The Tribunal held that loans advanced to 'B' class members do not disqualify the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(i). The Tribunal followed Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A is applicable only when money is not recorded in the books of account. Since the cash deposits, including SBNs, were duly recorded in the assessee's regularly maintained and audited books, the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim of agricultural income with evidence. The disclosure was not voluntary but a consequence of detection, and pleas like 'buy peace' are not valid defenses against penalty. Therefore, the penalty was rightly levied.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. A cost of Rs. 50,000/- was levied on the assessee for negligence.
The Tribunal found that the AO made additions for unexplained cash deposits and the assessee could not substantiate the source of these deposits before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed a reasoned order, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed without providing an effective opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal as infructuous solely on a technical ground of filing two appeals. The substantive challenge against the reassessment order should be adjudicated on merits.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) conducted a thorough verification of the SBN deposits and the genuineness of the increased sales. Therefore, the matter requires fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the additions were not supported by cogent and corroborative evidence. The loose sheets and diary entries alone did not constitute proof of actual expenditure or investment outside the books of account.
The Tribunal held that the activities of the trust, such as providing livelihood, skill development, and employment opportunities, were intrinsically linked to its charitable objectives. The generation of revenue through these activities did not render the trust non-charitable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, considering the incorrect email ID used for notices and the assessee's medical condition. The Tribunal also noted the lack of proper opportunity for the assessee during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without providing the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be solely based on a statement recorded during a survey. Since the assessee claimed the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A)'s notices were disputed, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the issues required proper factual verification and granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claims with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide a proper opportunity to the assessee and the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence without following due procedure. The case was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the AO could have elicited further details instead of drawing an adverse inference. The CIT(A)'s order was also considered non-speaking.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of JAO's jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 after March 29, 2022, was sub-judice before the High Courts and Supreme Court. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to allow the CIT(A) to adjudicate this legal issue after the higher courts decide.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance with the Section 142(1) notice was due to it being sent to the assessee's old address, which constitutes a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that its claim was not examined on merits. It set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering all relevant documents and evidence.
The Tribunal held that loans advanced to 'B' class members do not disqualify the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(i). The AO's disallowance was found not legally tenable, following Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the AO had no jurisdiction to make the addition of Rs. 5 crore during the 'giving effect' proceedings. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) was justified in deleting this addition as the AO exceeded his authority by raising a fresh issue beyond the scope of the ITAT's directions.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued in the name of a deceased person is unenforceable in law and void ab initio. The absence of intimation about the death by the legal heirs does not validate such a notice, as it is a jurisdictional defect, not a curable procedural irregularity.
The Tribunal found the 8% estimation to be on the higher side, considering the assessee's past profit history. They reduced the estimated net profit to 4% of the total turnover.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to provide necessary documentation and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 01.04.2022 was barred by limitation as the six-year period would have expired on 31.03.2022. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 07.04.2022 was barred by limitation as the six-year period expired on 31.03.2022. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee has now produced the cash book and other supporting documents before it, the matter requires fresh verification by the AO. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO's allegation of procuring bogus invoices was only with reference to M/s. LKR Enterprises. Therefore, it was fair and just to adopt a profit rate of 12.5% on the specific amount involving M/s. LKR Enterprises, not on the entire purchases.
The Tribunal held that the school was a branch of the society and its accounts were consolidated with the society's. Since the society had filed its return of income including these deposits, taxing them separately in the hands of the school would amount to double taxation. The AO failed to provide material to controvert the documentary evidence presented by the assessee.