Loading ITAT cases…
308 orders · Page 6 of 7
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act must be granted after due application of mind for each assessment year separately and cannot be a mere formality or rubber stamping. The approval in this case was found to be given in a hurried and bunched-up manner.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw the appeal. Both parties agreed, and the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the grounds for appeal had already been allowed due to the rectification order and subsequent appeal effect order. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal restricted the cash deposit addition to Rs. 1,50,000/-, granting a relief of Rs. 9,00,000/-. It also restricted the disallowance of the cost of improvement to Rs. 2,00,000/-, providing a relief of Rs. 1,95,451/-. Both decisions were made with the condition that they would not set a precedent.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding traffic challans and customer deposits, following previous coordinate bench decisions. The penalty for wrong waybills was dismissed, with liberty to reapply if the issue is settled favorably. The Revenue's appeal regarding delayed PF/ESI payments was allowed, following a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding traffic challans and customer deposits, following previous coordinate bench decisions. The penalty for wrong waybills was dismissed, with liberty to reapply if the issue is settled favorably. The Revenue's appeal regarding delayed PF/ESI payments was allowed, following a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that a proper opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as it was based on a mere change of opinion without any new material. The assessee had furnished full and true particulars during the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that repayments made by a partnership firm to its partners by way of journal entries do not fall within the ambit of Section 269T. Furthermore, the penalty under Section 271E is not mandatory and can be waived if there is a reasonable cause, which was found to exist in this case due to bonafide belief and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding traffic challans and customer deposits, following previous coordinate bench decisions. The penalty for wrong waybills was dismissed, with liberty to reapply if the issue is settled favorably. The Revenue's appeal regarding delayed PF/ESI payments was allowed, following a Supreme Court decision.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to opting for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding traffic challans and customer deposits, following previous coordinate bench decisions. The penalty for wrong waybills was dismissed, with liberty to reapply if the issue is settled favorably. The Revenue's appeal regarding delayed PF/ESI payments was allowed, following a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding traffic challans and customer deposits, following previous coordinate bench decisions. The penalty for wrong waybills was dismissed, with liberty to reapply if the issue is settled favorably. The Revenue's appeal regarding delayed PF/ESI payments was allowed, following a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on the same material evidence that the Delhi High Court had previously found to be unreliable and insufficient for making an addition. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on the same material evidence that the Delhi High Court had previously found to be unreliable and insufficient for making an addition. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on the same material evidence that the Delhi High Court had previously found to be unreliable and insufficient for making an addition. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on the same material evidence that the Delhi High Court had previously found to be unreliable and insufficient for making an addition. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding traffic challans and customer deposits, following previous coordinate bench decisions. The penalty for wrong waybills was dismissed, with liberty to reapply if the issue is settled favorably. The Revenue's appeal regarding delayed PF/ESI payments was allowed, following a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal for a delay of 30 days without providing an opportunity to explain the delay. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had also gone into the merits of the additions/disallowances after dismissing the appeal on a procedural ground. The Tribunal found that the inadvertent mention of 'no delay' in Form 35 should not prevent the ascertainment of the actual delay. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) is directed to decide the appeal after considering the assessee's explanation for any delay and after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, in accordance with law. The issue of the merits of the additions/disallowances was not decided by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the issues of reopening and offshore supplies, as they were decided against the assessee in its own case by the Delhi High Court. However, it directed the AO to apply a rate of 2.6% for profits attributable to the PE, following the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in treating the cash sales of Rs. 2,95,78,312/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE, applying the test of human probabilities. The CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition was reversed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's old age and ill health. The issue was the disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contribution paid after the due date. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the delay was from the actual salary payment date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of the issue being previously adjudicated was based on a misunderstanding of the prior order, which dealt with revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 and not the merits of agricultural income. The Tribunal also noted the lack of representation before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) by citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasizing that justifiable reasons should lead to substantial justice. The matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the commencement date for computation of the six/ten assessment years under Section 153C is the date of receipt of books of account/materials by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. The satisfaction note date by the AO of the non-searched person becomes the effective date. The impugned assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 were found to be outside the block period.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the issues under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had submitted proof of payment. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The assessee had submitted proof of payment of tax liability as per Form 2.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the issues under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and provided documentation. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued in the name of the erstwhile company which had ceased to exist due to amalgamation. The Tribunal found that the assessee had duly informed the authorities about the cessation of the erstwhile company. Therefore, the notice issued to a non-existent entity was vitiated. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sky Light Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT, which held that such a notice on a non-existent entity is vitiated. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for undisclosed income and unexplained cash credit, finding the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s partial allowance of depreciation on computers.
The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an accretion to the value and part of enhanced compensation, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF. Therefore, it should not be taxed as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is covered under Section 44AE of the Act, the cash deposits should be considered as his business income. The Assessing Officer was directed to frame consequential proceedings accordingly.
The Tribunal, applying the principle of liberal condonation of delay, allowed the condonation for both the 167-day delay in filing the present appeal and the 135-day delay before the CIT(A). Recognizing that the Assessee did not participate in the first appellate proceedings, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, deeming the appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee retains the liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits are not availed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 05/2024. As there were no exceptions applicable, the appeal was deemed withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the interest component of land acquisition compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the enhanced compensation and should be treated as such. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in Pawan Kumar vs. PCIT.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee opted for settling the dispute under the VSVS Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Department was treated as dismissed, with liberty to restore it if the VSVS Scheme declaration doesn't reach logical conclusions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances on A&M expenses, finding the reassessment proceedings to be without jurisdiction as the assessee had fully disclosed material facts during the original assessment. Additions under Section 14A were also upheld as per CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and lacked proper satisfaction from the prescribed authority, making the reopening invalid. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the unaccounted turnover was rational and based on scientific views from seized materials and comparable cases. The AO's estimation of net profit at 75% was not considered probable.
The tribunal, considering the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The matters were sent back to the Ld.CIT(A) for a fresh decision after the assessee participates and presents evidence.
The Tribunal held that as long as the assessee's book results filed under presumptive taxation under Section 44AD are not rejected, the addition for enhancing gross profit is not sustainable. This would defeat the purpose of the presumptive taxation scheme.
The Tribunal held that the appellant had not proven her status as a legal representative according to the Act and CPC. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's purchases were explained and the business operated in an unorganized sector with cash payments. Therefore, the assessment rate was reduced from 20% to 5% on the turnover, with the condition that this would not set a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the loan receipt lacked corroborative evidence and the assessee's denial and explanation of capital introduction were sufficient. The addition of Rs. 22,50,000 as unexplained income was deleted. The addition of Rs. 25,000 for capital contribution to a partnership firm was also deleted as it was duly reflected in the books of account.