Loading ITAT cases…
49 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not respond to AO notices and the CIT(A) largely disregarded submissions, relying on quantum orders without specific discussion regarding the penalties. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not respond to AO notices and the CIT(A) largely disregarded submissions, relying on quantum orders without specific discussion regarding the penalties. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.
The Tribunal held that authorities have inherent powers to condone procedural delays. While Section 12A(1)(ac) specifies timelines, the rejection of an application solely on delay can lead to significant consequences. The Tribunal noted that recent amendments recognize the power to condone delay, which was already an inherent power.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot make additions on issues unrelated to the reasons for reopening the assessment. Since no addition was made on the original ground of reopening, the assessment order and the consequent addition are void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal found some merit in the assessee's explanation regarding previous withdrawals. It directed a lump sum addition of Rs. 1 lakh, providing relief of Rs. 12.99 lakhs to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the medical expenses incurred for the Chairman were allowable as business expenditure, citing a board resolution and case law. It also found the rejection of the SBD unit's books of account unjustified, as no specific defects were pointed out and the combined profitability of SBD and Jaipur units was substantial.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and precedents, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer in Delhi lacked jurisdiction over the assessee's case. Consequently, all other issues became academic.
The Tribunal held that once the interest income addition was deleted, the reopening under Section 147 was no longer sustainable as only the estimated expenditure disallowance remained, which was not part of the AO's reasons for reopening.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the PCIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 50C(1) introducing a 5% tolerance band is curative in nature and has retrospective effect. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of this tolerance band even for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal acknowledged the substantial delay but, considering the COVID-19 period and the assessee's detailed affidavit explaining the circumstances, felt the assessee deserved a second chance. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the factual issues were not properly examined at lower levels and the CIT(A) took a narrow view by not condoning the delays. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the factual issues were not properly examined at lower levels and the CIT(A) took a narrow view by not condoning the delays. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain an addition of Rs. 16,83,956/-, representing the peak negative cash balance, as unexplained money. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided explanations and evidence to demonstrate that the negative balances in the Tally data were erroneous and that actual cash balances were positive.
The Tribunal held that only Rs. 5,000 was received in cash, and the remaining amount was through bank transfers. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 269SS, and the penalty levied under Section 271D was unjustified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal was based on an oversight and, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate on a fresh appeal, with directions to condone the delay.
The Tribunal found that the facts of the case were not adequately examined, especially regarding whether receipts were business income or rental income. Due to the assessee's inability to appear before the AO, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for proper fact-finding.
The Tribunal considered the applications of the assessees and allowed the withdrawal of all six appeals. Consequently, the appeals were treated as dismissed as they were withdrawn by the assessees.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the applications of the assessees and allowed the withdrawal of all six appeals. Consequently, the appeals were treated as dismissed as per the assessees' request.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the applications of the assessees and allowed the withdrawal of all six appeals. Consequently, the appeals were treated as dismissed as per the assessees' request.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the applications of the assessees and allowed the withdrawal of all six appeals. Consequently, the appeals were treated as dismissed as per the assessees' request.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, considering the applications of the assessees, allowed the withdrawal of all six appeals. Consequently, the appeals were treated as dismissed as they were withdrawn by the assessees.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the applications of the assessees and allowed the withdrawal of all six appeals. Consequently, the appeals were treated as dismissed as per the assessees' request.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of cash deposits, finding it to be part of sales and thus double-counted. However, it upheld the estimation of income but reduced the profit rate from 8% to 4% on the estimated turnover.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding a live link between material and escaped income. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the profit as LTCG, as the assessee failed to controvert the findings and the revenue was not in appeal against this classification.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not fully discharge its onus, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh would be just and proper, granting relief of Rs. 7,47,000/-. It also directed that assessment under Section 115BBE should not apply to transactions prior to April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for cash deposits was not fully discharged, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs would be just and proper, considering the nature of the business. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be made under normal provisions as it applies from April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), referencing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), emphasizing that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10AB, considering it to be bonafide and unintentional due to technical glitches. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to decide the application on its merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unsecured loans and unexplained expenditure, finding that the transactions were duly recorded in the books of account and supported by evidence. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s action in sustaining additions related to unexplained money and commission, finding the assessee's explanations to be an afterthought.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is directory in nature. Delay in filing should not deprive the assessee of exemption, especially when the claim is not incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unsecured loans and unexplained expenditure, finding that the transactions were duly recorded in the books of account and supported by evidence. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s action in sustaining additions related to unexplained money and commission, finding the assessee's explanations to be an afterthought.
The Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 3 lakh, acknowledging the possibility of cash turnover in the business but finding the assessee had not fully discharged its onus. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be made under normal provisions as it applies from April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. It deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing liberal interpretation for sufficient cause. Considering the assessee's regular assessment and available funds, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4,87,210, allowing credit for withdrawals made in preceding years.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 10 lacs surrendered income, arising from suppressed professional receipts, could not be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69A. It should be taxed as business income at normal rates, not under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not fully discharge the onus of proof, the business involved cash turnover. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh was deemed just and proper, granting relief on the remaining amount.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had attempted to explain the source of the cash deposit, there was some unexplained portion. However, the revenue's disallowance was also not fully justified. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of INR 5.00 was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding a live link between material and escaped income. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the profit as LTCG, as the assessee failed to controvert the findings and the revenue was not in appeal against this classification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure justice, acknowledging potential communication issues with virtual hearings.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a DVO's report, without specific incriminating material, are invalid under Section 153C. Admissions of surrendered income, without independent corroboration, are also not sustainable as per CBDT circulars.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The department representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact clause under Section 270A under which the penalty was initiated, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.