Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 9 of 10
The Tribunal heard the Learned DR and perused the records. In view of the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have called for a remand report from the AO before making a fresh addition, especially when the assessee contended the issue was discussed with the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed detailed reconciliation and supporting evidence before the CIT(A) which were not considered. To serve the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's husband had disclosed income that accounted for the jewellery found in the assessee's locker. The claim of family jewellery could not be completely discarded, especially since a portion was not seized based on CBDT instructions.
The Tribunal followed previous coordinate bench decisions which held that the jewellery found in the assessee's locker was part of the undisclosed income declared by her father-in-law. Therefore, no separate addition in the assessee's hands was warranted.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was indeed below Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable based on the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 43B is warranted when the service tax amount was not claimed as an expense in the P&L account. The liability arose under the reverse charge mechanism and did not reduce taxable income, thus not falling within the scope of Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness of share applicants, and genuineness of the transaction, as required by Section 68. The orders of the lower authorities were found to be correct.
The Tribunal found that the order was passed ex-parte without deciding the issues on merit. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide a hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee and the difficulty in ascertaining the facts, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of substantial justice to allow the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessee was a capital receipt and not revenue, as it was received due to the immobilization and sterilization of a capital asset. Therefore, the additions made by the lower authorities were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was not a speaking order and did not afford natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had properly appreciated the evidence regarding the identity and genuineness of the unsecured loan creditors. The amendment to Section 68 regarding 'source of source' is not retrospective and thus not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal found no evidence in the CIT(A)'s order to support the 1/15th share claim and noted a violation of natural justice. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted by a coordinate bench in the quantum appeal, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, considering the Supreme Court's ruling on extension of limitation.
The Tribunal found that the issue of carry forward loss was denied by the lower authorities on multiple grounds, including the claim not being made in the return and the non-submission of Form 62. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in denying the correction of an apparent error in the Sales Tax Subsidy amount. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer and without sufficient tangible material. The approval under Section 151 was also found to be mechanical and lacking in due diligence.
The Tribunal noted that the taxability of belated employee contributions is settled law. However, it also referred to a coordinate bench decision regarding the methodology of calculating default based on actual salary disbursement, which was not examined by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's purchases were accepted and the books of accounts were not disturbed. The Tribunal held that the cash sales alone should not be the basis for addition, especially when purchases were accepted and no stock discrepancies were found.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer and without sufficient tangible material. The approval under Section 151 was also found to be mechanical and lacking in due diligence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly. It held that the disallowance for the deposit made on 16.05.2016 (a Sunday) was incorrect, considering Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. For other delayed deposits, the CIT(A)'s reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, on which the penalty was based, had already been deleted by a previous ITAT order, the penalty itself did not survive.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay, failing to consider the Supreme Court's directions regarding exclusion of the COVID-19 period for limitation. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate and sufficient enquiry on the issues raised by the Principal CIT. Therefore, the revisionary order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Tonnage Tax Scheme is not applicable to drilling rigs. Regarding the amounts written off, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish his NRI status, which was ignored by the AO. The Tribunal directed the AO to complete the assessment considering the assessee as a non-resident.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a facilitator for RKRT Transport Company, depositing and withdrawing funds for diesel purchases. While the entire deposit was not treated as the assessee's income, the AO was directed to estimate the net profit/remuneration at 8% of the total deposits as per Section 44AD.
The Tribunal held that the Tonnage Tax Scheme is not applicable to drilling rigs. Regarding the amounts written off, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing before making additions. The CIT(A) also failed to obtain a remand report or allow the AO to comment on the evidence submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to re-examine the nature of computer purchases and their eligibility for Section 80-IC deduction. The sales promotion expense disallowance was also linked to an enhanced 80-IC deduction.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) is to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing purchase orders, bills, goods inward notes, and proof of payment through account payee cheques. The Tribunal found that the purchases were documented and necessary for the assessee's manufacturing activities, and the non-traceability of the supplier after 8 years did not automatically render the transactions bogus.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was wrongly imposed as the assessee had complied with the notice before the due date. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding the case on merits. Considering the affidavit filed by the assessee and the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est due to the absence of DIN and incomplete uploading on the ITBA portal, which violated principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for factual verification, considering the due date for deposit based on the month of actual salary disbursement, as per a coordinate bench ruling. The AO is to re-compute the disallowance accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary powers were not applicable as the issues raised were already considered and decided in a prior appeal by the CIT(A). Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reference to the DVO lacked justification and the DVO's valuation methodology was flawed. Therefore, the re-computation of capital gains by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) could not be sustained.
The Tribunal found that the commission charged in similar accommodation entry businesses ranges between 1% to 1.5%. Therefore, the AO was directed to recalculate the commission income at 1% of the total sales.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs and was applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal noted that as per Section 4(2) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an appeal pending before the tribunal is deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a certificate by the designated authority. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings, consistency in accepting the head of income in preceding and subsequent years by the revenue cannot be ignored. The CIT(A)'s reliance on Supreme Court decisions was upheld.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh determination, considering the methodology of calculating default based on the month of salary disbursement, as per a coordinate bench ruling. The AO was directed to re-compute the disallowance accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the addition of net profit under Section 68 was incorrect. If sales/purchases were bogus, the addition should have been either commission or the full amount, not a net profit margin. The AO also failed to conduct necessary inquiries.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for factual verification. The AO is to re-compute the disallowance based on the due date of deposit from the close of the month of actual salary disbursement, as per a co-ordinate bench ruling.