Loading ITAT cases…
470 orders · Page 7 of 10
The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s reasoning for dismissal unjustified, considering the small delay and the reasonable cause presented. The Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning for dismissal unjustified, stating that an opportunity should have been given to the assessee to rectify defects. The Tribunal condoned the 12-day delay in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal was not justified and that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify defects. The Tribunal condoned the 12-day delay in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were bad in law as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being imposed (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were bad in law as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being imposed (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were bad in law as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being imposed (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages, held that depreciation is allowable on intangible assets, including business or commercial rights of a similar nature. Since the claim was not disturbed in the initial year, it cannot be disturbed in subsequent years if facts remain the same.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the revenue to approach the Tribunal if the tax effect exceeded the threshold.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on fixed deposits, placed as margin money for bank guarantees and letters of credit for the hotel construction, is inextricably linked to the construction activity. Therefore, such interest income should be reduced from the capital work-in-progress.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the payments made to obtain the premises. The revenue failed to tax the recipients, and therefore, the assessee should be allowed the benefit of these payments.
The Tribunal held that the entire turnover cannot be treated as profit. It directed that the addition should be restricted to 5% of the net profit on the gross receipt, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had attended assessment proceedings on certain dates, filed replies, and submitted written submissions. Therefore, it was concluded that there had been compliance with the notices issued.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of loan utilization for business purposes, following its previous decisions on similar matters for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of loan utilization for business purposes, following its previous decisions on similar matters for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that no proceedings against the company could continue during the moratorium period under Section 14 of the IBC Code, 2016. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that no proceedings against the company could continue during the moratorium period under Section 14 of the IBC Code, 2016. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that no proceedings against the company could continue during the moratorium period under Section 14 of the IBC Code, 2016. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that no proceedings against the company could continue during the moratorium period under Section 14 of the IBC Code, 2016. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had accepted part of the evidence for milk sales but arbitrarily reduced the income. For the gift, the CIT(A) rejected the evidence solely on the basis of it being a photocopy. The Tribunal set aside both issues to the AO for fresh determination.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had attended assessment proceedings on certain dates, filed replies, and submitted written submissions. Therefore, it was concluded that there had been compliance with the notices issued.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had attended assessment proceedings on certain dates, filed replies, and submitted written submissions. Therefore, it was concluded that there had been compliance with the notices issued.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and sought to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had attended assessment proceedings on certain dates, filed replies, and submitted written submissions. Therefore, it was concluded that there had been compliance with the notices issued.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal with liberty to recall it if the dispute is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the addition related to unreconciled bank deposits back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, directing the assessee to provide evidence for adjustments. The addition related to advances from customers was also set aside for verification of subsequent sales booked against these advances.
The Tribunal noted that the investments appeared to be from the assessee's past savings and retirement dues. However, due to the lack of proper explanation before the lower authorities, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had attended assessment proceedings on certain dates, filed replies, and submitted written submissions. Therefore, it was concluded that there had been compliance with the notices issued.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had attended assessment proceedings on certain dates, filed replies, and submitted written submissions. Therefore, it was concluded that there had been compliance with the notices issued.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as the case fell within the ambit of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circular was binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of loan utilization for business purposes, following its previous decisions on similar matters for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that since the addition forming the basis of the penalty was deleted, the penalty itself must also be deleted. The foundation for the penalty no longer existed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to explain the discrepancies before passing a fresh order.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT circulars. The Departmental Representative did not press the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made under Section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, especially when the transactions were already recorded in the books of accounts. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had attended assessment proceedings on certain dates, filed replies, and submitted written submissions. Therefore, it was concluded that there had been compliance with the notices issued.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute had been settled under The Direct Tax Vivaad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s observation that sales were bogus was contrary to the records, as the assessee had provided all necessary documentation for the transactions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly concluded that the bogus purchases offset the bogus sales, and no additional unaccounted income was generated. Therefore, the addition was not tenable.
The tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the liability under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was deleted in prior appeals for similar facts, the penalty under Section 271C, which is based on that liability, cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that since the liability under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was deleted in prior appeals for similar facts, the penalty under Section 271C, which is based on that liability, cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the AO's rejection of books was ad hoc and lacked specific findings of defects. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no factual error in the deletion.
The Tribunal decided that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed as non-maintainable due to the tax effect being below the enhanced monetary limit. The Department can file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeds the limit.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeals had a low tax effect, falling below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals were to be disposed of as per the circular.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn by the assessee. This was due to the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn by the assessee. This was due to the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.