Loading ITAT cases…
382 orders · Page 3 of 8
Acknowledging potential communication gaps in the online hearing system, the tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted three effective opportunities to present their case, pleading and proving all relevant facts at their own risk and responsibility. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found the CIT(A)/NFAC's refusal to condone the delay unsustainable in law, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The ITAT reversed the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits, providing three effective opportunities.
The tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in online hearings and deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee must plead and prove all relevant facts within three opportunities.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in online hearings and decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to plead and prove facts.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter requires a denovo assessment. The issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal, citing Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (SC), held that the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay was not sustainable in law. The impugned lower appellate order was reversed, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, with three effective opportunities for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of books and estimation of income without proper reconciliation was not justified. It also found that once books are rejected, no further disallowance can be made on other grounds. The Tribunal modified the estimation of income and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of other additions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked proper points of determination and detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, ensuring the appellant is granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, noting that the assessee had indeed constructed a structure whose residential nature was not specifically rejected by the lower authorities. It accepted the assessee's stand and deleted the impugned Section 54 disallowance.
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 ITAT, in the interest of substantial justice and considering the ex parte assessment, condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the matter requires a denovo assessment in the interest of justice. The issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found the statement regarding incorrect email ID misleading and initially considered imposing costs. However, considering the objects of the Society and the need for a fair hearing, the additional documents were admitted, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering the possibility of communication gaps in the online hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the *prima facie* agricultural income nature of the deposits and restricted the addition from Rs. 12,16,500/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-, granting a relief of Rs. 11,16,500/-. It also noted, citing a Madras High Court ruling, that Section 115BBE applies to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter requires a denovo assessment. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issues afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the full exemption of Rs. 6,97,100/- as it is below the revised limit prescribed by the CBDT. The AO is directed to allow the claim within the revised limit.
The tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is mandated to plead and prove all relevant facts at their own risk and responsibility within three effective opportunities. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that due to the possibility of communication gaps in the online hearing system, it was appropriate to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh determination on merits and law, after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal observed potential communication gaps in the online hearing system and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is required to plead and prove all relevant facts at their own risk and responsibility within three effective opportunities.
Recognizing potential communication gaps in the new online hearing system, the tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted three effective opportunities to plead and prove all relevant facts at their own risk and responsibility.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's reasons for the delay were unrebutted and, citing Supreme Court precedent, held that the delay ought to have been condoned to allow for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A)/NFAC's order refusing to condone the delay was reversed, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an employee of a nationalized bank, should be treated as a government employee for the purpose of Section 10(10AA) exemption. Additionally, the revised limit for leave encashment exemption is Rs. 25,00,000, which is higher than the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's refusal to condone the delay was not sustainable in law, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was reversed, and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the Rs. 3 crore addition, noting that the seized document showed both the receipt and repayment of the loan, thus it could not be considered unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of invoking Section 68 or initiating proceedings under Section 269SS/269T, such a loan should be treated as a liability, not income.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It added a caveat that if the dispute is not ultimately resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee is free to seek reinstitution of the appeal before the Tribunal, which will be considered as per law.
The Tribunal noted the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the explanation for the credit card expenditure in his remand report. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investments was not justified and ordered its deletion.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's filed returns were accepted without modification and no addition was made, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. The former order of CIT(A) deleting the penalties was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's filed returns were accepted without modification and no addition was made, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. The former order of CIT(A) deleting the penalties was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. One appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to this settlement, and the other was dismissed as infructuous as it was a duplicate.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. This was based on judicial pronouncements that the relevant date for reckoning the six-year period is the date of handing over of seized material to the AO of the non-searched person, which was after the relevant period for AY 2015-16.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn. It granted the assessee liberty to file an application for restoration of the appeal if the matter is not finally settled/approved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies used for benchmarking royalty payments were valid and directed the AO/TPO to include them. It also ruled that no transfer pricing adjustment was needed for royalty paid on brand marketing fees, following previous judicial pronouncements. Issues related to duty drawback and dividend distribution tax were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) was an ex parte order and not a speaking order. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not sustainable as the AO's assessment was based on Supreme Court decisions affirming that interest under Section 28 is part of enhanced compensation. The Tribunal distinguished the High Court decisions relied upon by the PCIT and noted that the PCIT's order was based solely on an audit objection.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's filed returns were accepted without modification and no addition was made, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. The former order of CIT(A) deleting the penalties was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the Section 10(1) exemption claim afresh. It clarified that appellate authorities have the jurisdiction to admit new claims, even without a revised return, contrary to the lower authorities' impugned action.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's filed returns were accepted without modification and no addition was made, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. The former order of CIT(A) deleting the penalties was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee is to be granted an opportunity of being heard and to present evidence, with the CIT(A) having liberty to dispose of the appeals strictly in accordance with law if the assessee fails to cooperate.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. One appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to this settlement, and the other was dismissed as infructuous as it was a duplicate.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's filed returns were accepted without modification and no addition was made, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. The former order of CIT(A) deleting the penalties was upheld.
The ITAT deleted the addition of Rs. 42,50,000/- from MNF Projects Ltd. under Section 68, finding that the lender had sufficient creditworthiness and genuineness was established. However, the ITAT upheld the disallowance of sales commission of Rs. 15,59,666/- as the assessee failed to establish the services rendered. The charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C was deemed consequential and thus not adjudicated upon.
The Tribunal condoned the 439-day delay, noting the assessee's condonation petition and citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. It further deleted the Rs. 10,000/- penalty, attributing the non-cooperation to potential communication gaps during the COVID pandemic outbreak.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's filed returns were accepted without modification and no addition was made, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. The former order of CIT(A) deleting the penalties was upheld.
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 ITAT found the explanation for the 42-day delay acceptable and condoned it. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits, after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and considering all evidence.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the application afresh after considering all the documents produced by the Appellant and providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that the additional evidence was crucial to the dispute and was not available with the assessee during the original assessment proceedings. To ensure substantial justice, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, with directions for the AO to consider the fresh documents and provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's filed returns were accepted without modification and no addition was made, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. The former order of CIT(A) deleting the penalties was upheld.