Loading ITAT cases…
70 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the appellate order without discussing the facts and issues, and simply upheld the assessment order. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for readjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case, subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI paid after the due date is in accordance with law. This is based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. and M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.
The Tribunal agreed that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the cash sales reconciliation. However, it found the addition made by the Principal CIT to be harsh and directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with another opportunity to explain and reconcile the difference.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not receive any sale consideration, no capital gains could be levied. The takeover of properties by the lender to recover its dues was considered an application of income at source without it ever accruing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that issuing a show cause notice before making any adjustment under Section 143(1) is mandatory. As no such notice was issued to the assessee for AY 2020-2021, the intimation is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as a precautionary measure because a rectification application u/s. 154 was pending before the CIT(A) concerning the impugned order. The assessee was granted liberty to pursue further appellate remedies if the rectification application did not yield satisfactory results.
The Tribunal decided to first adjudicate the jurisdictional and legal objections raised by the assessee in its cross-objections. These objections pertained to the validity of the reassessment proceedings, including the approval for reopening, the timing of the notice, and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, as part of the milk booth system, was entitled to receive demonetized currency. It also found the income estimation unsustainable due to the lack of a comparative method.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This was done to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to present all evidence, considering the circumstances.
The Tribunal held that estimation of income is unsustainable without rejecting the books of account and invoking Section 145(3). Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 1,60,00,000/- transaction was indeed a purchase of land by the partnership firm and not a sale by the assessee, directing its deletion. For the demonetization cash deposits, the Tribunal found insufficient verification and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment application and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for readjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant adequate opportunity of hearing, with liberty to draw adverse inference if the assessee again failed to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 1,60,00,000/- transaction was indeed a purchase of land by the partnership firm and not a sale by the assessee, directing its deletion. For the demonetization cash deposits, the Tribunal found insufficient verification and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.
The Tribunal agreed with the PCIT that the AO wrongly allowed the set-off of brought forward business loss, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, it disagreed with the PCIT's direction regarding interest income, finding it contrary to the facts.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to compelling circumstances. The CIT(A) is directed to pass an order after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. It found that the grounds raised were not valid for appeal before the Tribunal and that the CIT(A) had correctly followed judicial discipline regarding the timely filing of the audit report.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to compelling circumstances. The CIT(A) is directed to pass an order after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to compelling circumstances. The CIT(A) is directed to pass an order after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to compelling circumstances. The CIT(A) is directed to pass an order after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.