Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 1 of 9
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause and showed a lack of diligence. The appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had set aside the assessment for de novo consideration without adjudicating the jurisdictional grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal agreed to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication of these grounds.
The tribunal found that the net profit ratios of the assessee for previous years, averaging to 0.46%, were reasonable. Therefore, the addition of 2% by the AO and CIT(A) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the Revenue failed to provide independent corroborative material linking the assessee to the alleged unaccounted transactions. The Tribunal emphasized that third-party records alone are insufficient without such corroboration and denied the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's lack of technical knowledge and reliance on a practitioner. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the non-response of suppliers alone does not prove bogus purchases and restored the matter to the AO for further evidence. It also held that GST late fees are compensatory and allowable as a business deduction.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the Revenue failed to provide independent corroborative material linking the assessee to the alleged unaccounted transactions. The Tribunal emphasized that third-party records alone are insufficient without such corroboration and denied the opportunity for cross-examination.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause and showed a lack of diligence. The appeals were dismissed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause and showed a lack of diligence. The appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the Revenue failed to provide independent corroborative material linking the assessee to the alleged unaccounted transactions. The Tribunal emphasized that third-party records alone are insufficient without such corroboration and denied the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the Revenue failed to provide independent corroborative material linking the assessee to the alleged unaccounted transactions. The Tribunal emphasized that third-party records alone are insufficient without such corroboration and denied the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have considered the assessee's conduct during assessment proceedings when deciding on the condonation of delay. Considering the death of the husband, the prevalent COVID-19 pandemic, and extensions granted by the CBDT and Supreme Court, the Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay as the explanation offered by the assessee remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should not have considered the assessee's conduct during assessment proceedings when deciding on the condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that the death of the husband and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic constituted sufficient cause for the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(E). The assessee was granted an opportunity to furnish necessary documentary evidence to support its claims.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case. The CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of the appeal on merits, even if ex-parte, by framing points of determination and providing detailed reasoning.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(E). The assessee was granted an opportunity to furnish necessary documentary evidence to support its claims.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to furnish the required details. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause and showed a lack of diligence. The appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay to be bonafide and granted an opportunity for the appeal to be adjudicated on merits. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay upon payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits, as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal further found that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without proper notice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay on payment of costs and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, and the assessee claimed no notice of hearing was served. The Tribunal, with no serious objection from the Revenue, decided to remand the matter.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause and showed a lack of diligence. The appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the inadvertent error and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the brokerage amount of ₹60,000/- paid for the sale of the residential property is an allowable expenditure, considering it is a normal commercial expense in real estate transactions and supported by evidence of acknowledgement of receipt. The addition made by the revenue on this account was deleted. Regarding travel expenses from the US to India, the Tribunal held that it is not an expenditure to be claimed in relation to the sale of immovable property, as it constitutes personal expenditure. Therefore, the assessee's claim was rejected. Concerning interest on housing loan, loan processing charges, document charges, conveyance, power, and other amenities, the Tribunal held that these are allowable expenditures in real estate transactions. The disallowance by the AO and CIT(A) for non-submission of evidence was set aside, and the assessee was held entitled to claim these expenditures. The addition made by the revenue on this account was deleted. The order of the CIT(A) was modified to this extent, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed to that extent.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were reciprocal exchanges of equivalent land as per an MOU, not transfers without consideration. Since the value of land received in exchange was equivalent to the value of land transferred, Section 43CA was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have considered the assessee's conduct during assessment proceedings when deciding on the condonation of delay. Considering the death of the husband, the COVID-19 pandemic period, and the explanation of mental distress, the Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay.
The Tribunal noted the absence of supporting evidence before the AO and CIT(A). Considering the assessee's readiness to provide evidence and the respondent's no objection, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have considered the assessee's conduct during assessment proceedings when deciding on the condonation of delay. Considering the death of the husband and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause and showed a lack of diligence. The appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the audit report was available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of the reassessment proceedings, the delay constituted a technical and venial breach, and thus the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, while deprecating the assessee's attitude, granted one more opportunity to substantiate its charitable activities before the CIT(E). The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeals solely on delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal allowed the claim relating to Section 10(10B) but dismissed the claim relating to Section 10(10AA) as it was not properly raised.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which allows for the computation of fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, was introduced only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees for the assessment years prior to this date was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which allows for the computation of fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, was introduced only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying such fees for assessment years prior to this date was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the circumstances, granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its charitable activities before the CIT(E). The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the circumstances, granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its charitable activities before the CIT(E). The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeals solely on delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal allowed the claim relating to Section 10(10B) but dismissed the claim relating to Section 10(10AA) as it was not properly raised.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the sufficient cause shown by the assessee. However, it strongly deprecated the assessee's non-compliance and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the sufficient cause shown by the assessee. However, it strongly deprecated the assessee's non-compliance and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's medical condition. While deprecating the assessee's non-response, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent furnishing of Form 27C constitutes substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the assessees cannot be treated as defaulters merely due to the delay in obtaining the forms.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent furnishing of Form 27C constitutes substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the assessees cannot be treated as defaulters merely due to the delay in obtaining the forms.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the AO. The AO was directed to call for necessary details and decide the issues in accordance with law, providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard as a new issue was raised with only seven days to respond. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. The matter was remitted to the FAA for fresh adjudication as the assessee could not effectively participate in the proceedings due to incorrect email service.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances. Despite the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice, with a cost imposed.