Loading ITAT cases…
218 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for adjudication on merits. The duplicate appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to COVID-19 impact. It further directed the deletion of the disallowance of travelling expenses, considering the substantial income declared by the assessee and the business purpose of the travel.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was granted to provide the assessee another opportunity to furnish evidence, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS, as amended, applies to cash receipts for immovable property transactions. However, it also considered the 'reasonable cause' defense under Section 273B.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a PACS, claimed the cash deposits belonged to its members but failed to substantiate this before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to provide supporting documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice, stating that procedural lapses should not deny the taxpayer's right to be heard on merits. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to furnish evidence. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 15,000/-.
The tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and held that since the sale consideration was received through banking channels in the HUF's account, Section 269SS was not applicable. Consequently, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO widened the scope of limited scrutiny without obtaining prior approval. Therefore, the addition made on an issue outside the limited scrutiny scope is deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee should be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A was invalid as it did not provide the mandatory 7 days' time for compliance. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A was invalid as it did not grant the statutory 7 days' time for compliance. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not considering gifts received by the assessee, especially when evidence was produced and assessments for earlier years were not open. The Tribunal accepted the gifts and the assessee's cash flow.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not consider the assessee's response to the rejection notice. Therefore, the appeals are restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was issued mechanically without application of mind and suffered from an incurable defect. Following the decisions of the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable due to the failure to strike off the inapplicable limb in the notice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for adjudication on merits. The duplicate appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee.
The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the issues to the CIT(E)'s file. The CIT(E) is directed to pass a speaking order after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the applications on merits. The CIT(E) is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored the applications to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the issues on merits. This was done to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case after the initial rejection due to lack of details and filing beyond the time limit.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice, stating that procedural lapses should not deny the taxpayer's right to be heard on merits. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not consider the assessee's response to the rejection notice. Therefore, the appeals are restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The principles of natural justice should not be sacrificed for procedural lapses.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation, noting the discrepancy in the alleged payment date versus the agreement date and a similar case where such an explanation was accepted. The addition made by the AO was deemed unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid despite minor discrepancies in figures. However, it deleted the addition on account of TDS, while upholding additions related to service tax, PF & ESI, and miscellaneous expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration or their income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused an opportunity for readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to submit necessary details. A cost of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on the assessee for each appeal due to non-cooperation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration or their income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused an opportunity for readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice should not be sacrificed for procedural lapses and that merits should prevail over technicalities. The delay was condoned, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 274 read with section 270A was invalid because it did not specify the exact provisions of section 270A under which the penalty was proposed. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 270A was deleted.
The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting an opportunity of being heard. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration or substantiate their claims before the CIT(E) or the Tribunal. The assessees also could not produce income and expenditure statements.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for readjudication to grant the assessee another opportunity to produce the required details. A cost of Rs. 20,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without proper jurisdiction as it predated the notification authorizing the NFAC. Consequently, the assessment order and all consequent proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the net profit at 3% of the turnover, considering the assessee filed a return in response to a notice u/s 148 and did not provide all details. The disclosed income was to be reduced from the determined net profit for addition.
The tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, holding that delays in payment of both employee and employer contributions to PF and ESI are disallowable.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 16/2023 extended the due date for filing Form 10BB to 30.11.2023. Since the assessee filed Form 10BB on 19.10.2023, which was within the extended due date, the intimation under Section 143(1) was erroneous.
The Tribunal found that the AO failed to bring out sufficient facts regarding the transaction and the CIT(A)'s order was based on a procedural violation. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the income by estimating the net profit at 1.2% of the total turnover, considering the assessee's declared net profit of 1.09% and the CIT(A)'s average net profit of 1.194%.
The Tribunal held that the license issued in an individual's name cannot be used by a partnership firm, as per Supreme Court precedent. The assessee failed to respond to show-cause notices or adequately address the issue of income being assessed in the correct hands.
The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits were used for making payments for the purchase of IMFL to OSBC, and the AO had accepted the assessee's purchases and sales, the deposits could not be treated as unexplained income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the amounts were received by cheques, there was no violation of Section 269SS. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271D was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was not in the prescribed format and was void. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were also invalid.