Loading ITAT cases…
47 orders · Page 1 of 1
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's approach of refusing to condone the delay without properly considering the medical complications cited by the assessee was not justifiable. The tribunal emphasized that technicalities should not impede substantial justice.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had not fully substantiated all sales, the AO's estimation of 8% net profit was not fully justified. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of 1.75% of gross profit on sales was deemed appropriate, which would also cover the addition for cash deposits.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's approach of refusing to condone the delay without properly considering the medical complications cited by the assessee was not justifiable. The tribunal emphasized that technicalities should not impede substantial justice.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's approach of refusing to condone the delay without properly considering the medical complications cited by the assessee was not justifiable. The tribunal emphasized that technicalities should not impede substantial justice.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's approach of refusing to condone the delay without properly considering the medical complications cited by the assessee was not justifiable. The tribunal emphasized that technicalities should not impede substantial justice.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's approach of refusing to condone the delay without properly considering the medical complications cited by the assessee was not justifiable. The tribunal emphasized that technicalities should not impede substantial justice.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's approach of refusing to condone the delay without properly considering the medical complications cited by the assessee was not justifiable. The tribunal emphasized that technicalities should not impede substantial justice.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's approach of refusing to condone the delay without properly considering the medical complications cited by the assessee was not justifiable. The tribunal emphasized that technicalities should not impede substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by furnishing the PAN of the payee-transporter, then disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not permissible, even if there is a violation of the provisions of Section 194C(7). The Tribunal reasoned that Sections 194C(6) and 194C(7) are independent of each other and cannot be read together to attract disallowance. It was further clarified that under Section 194C(6), as it stood prior to the 2015 amendment, filing of the PAN of the payee-transporter alone is sufficient for immunity from TDS, and no confirmation letter is required. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with Section 194C(6) by furnishing the PAN details. Therefore, the lower authorities were not justified in treating the assessee as being in default. The appeals were allowed in these terms.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by furnishing the PAN of the payee-transporter, then disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not permissible, even if there is a violation of the provisions of Section 194C(7). The Tribunal reasoned that Sections 194C(6) and 194C(7) are independent of each other and cannot be read together to attract disallowance. It was further clarified that under Section 194C(6), as it stood prior to the 2015 amendment, filing of the PAN of the payee-transporter alone is sufficient for immunity from TDS, and no confirmation letter is required. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with Section 194C(6) by furnishing the PAN details. Therefore, the lower authorities were not justified in treating the assessee as being in default. The appeals were allowed in these terms.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by furnishing the PAN of the payee-transporter, then disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not permissible, even if there is a violation of the provisions of Section 194C(7). The Tribunal reasoned that Sections 194C(6) and 194C(7) are independent of each other and cannot be read together to attract disallowance. It was further clarified that under Section 194C(6), as it stood prior to the 2015 amendment, filing of the PAN of the payee-transporter alone is sufficient for immunity from TDS, and no confirmation letter is required. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with Section 194C(6) by furnishing the PAN details. Therefore, the lower authorities were not justified in treating the assessee as being in default. The appeals were allowed in these terms.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was invalid due to a lack of valid approval under section 153D of the Act. The approval granted was considered a mechanical exercise and therefore a non-est one.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification. The AO was directed to examine the new evidence and pass an order in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was instituted in the name of a deceased assessee without bringing legal representatives on record. Therefore, the appeal and the order under challenge were quashed.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE is attracted only for transactions on or after April 1, 2017. Since the tax effect was less than the minimum threshold specified by CBDT circular, the Revenue's ground failed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable in law because the Assessing Officer had significantly deviated from the original proposal and reasons for reopening. Consequently, the reassessment and consequential penalty were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable in law because the Assessing Officer had significantly deviated from the original proposal and reasons for reopening. Consequently, the reassessment and consequential penalty were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the CIT(A)/NFAC and the ITAT, citing reasons like flash floods and the death of the assessee's auditor. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the CIT(A)/NFAC and the ITAT, citing reasons like flash floods and the death of the assessee's auditor. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, finding a live link between the investigation material and the escapement of income. However, it modified the addition on alleged bogus purchases, restricting it to a 2.5% profit margin instead of the 8% upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, finding a live link between the investigation material and the escapement of income. However, it modified the addition on alleged bogus purchases, restricting it to a 2.5% profit margin instead of the 8% upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, finding a live link between the investigation material and the escapement of income. However, it modified the addition on alleged bogus purchases, restricting it to a 2.5% profit margin instead of the 8% upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, finding a live link between the investigation material and the escapement of income. However, it modified the addition on alleged bogus purchases, restricting it to a 2.5% profit margin instead of the 8% upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, finding a live link between the investigation material and the escapement of income. However, it modified the addition on alleged bogus purchases, restricting it to a 2.5% profit margin instead of the 8% upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, finding a live link between the investigation material and the escapement of income. However, it modified the addition on alleged bogus purchases, restricting it to a 2.5% profit margin instead of the 8% upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, finding a live link between the investigation material and the escapement of income. However, it modified the addition on alleged bogus purchases, restricting it to a 2.5% profit margin instead of the 8% upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the CIT(A)/NFAC and the ITAT, citing reasons like flash floods and the death of the assessee's auditor. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153C satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not specify that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of taxable income. Furthermore, the common Section 153D approval was also found to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153C satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not specify that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of taxable income. Furthermore, the common Section 153D approval was also found to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153C satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not specify that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of taxable income. Furthermore, the common Section 153D approval was also found to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153C satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not specify that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of taxable income. Furthermore, the common Section 153D approval was also found to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153C satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not specify that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of taxable income. Furthermore, the common Section 153D approval was also found to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 is a procedural defect and should not disentitle the assessee from claiming foreign tax credit, especially when it is beneficial to the assessee as per DTAA provisions. The Tribunal followed a precedent where a similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee partially discharged its onus, some cash deposits remained unexplained. A lump-sum addition was deemed appropriate for both assessment years, and Section 115BBE was directed not to be applied for the earlier year.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not fully explained the source of cash deposits, a lump-sum addition would be appropriate. The addition under Section 115BBE was directed to be taxed under normal provisions, following a High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the loose papers did not clearly establish the nature of entries as expenditure from undisclosed sources. It also noted that the assessee had offered substantial additional income in preceding years, which could be utilized to explain the alleged expenditure.
The Tribunal directed the AO to exclude the bank account held by the assessee's wife from the total addition, as she was a separately assessed individual and the source of deposits was explained. For the remaining two accounts, the addition was restricted to the negative cash balance of INR 14,27,000/- as per the fund flow statement.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause, including disputes among trustees and the main trustee's medical treatment. The case was remanded to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the amount received was an outstanding balance from previous years for support services provided on a cost-to-cost basis. Since the income was already offered in the respective preceding years, its realization in the current year did not constitute new income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the loose papers did not clearly establish the nature of entries as expenditure from undisclosed sources. It also noted that the assessee had offered substantial additional income in preceding years, which could be utilized to explain the alleged expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the funds received from the partnership firm were in the nature of a loan to the assessee in his personal capacity and not a cessation of liability. Therefore, the addition made under Section 41(1) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54B as the entire sale consideration was invested in new agricultural land within the stipulated period, even if the unutilized amount was not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme. The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. K. Ramachandra Rao.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay. The delay was condoned in the interest of justice, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the seized document lacked any mention of 'cash' payment and was not corroborated by any statement. Crucially, the assessee was denied the opportunity for cross-examination of the person from whom the document was seized, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a 'dumb document' seized from a third party, which did not explicitly mention 'cash' payment. Crucially, the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the person from whom the documents were seized, violating principles of natural justice.