Loading ITAT cases…
814 orders · Page 3 of 17
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that there was a denial of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable in law as the addition made was not in line with the sole reason for reopening. Therefore, the reopening itself was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without proper consideration and application of mind, violating the assessee's right to a hearing. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind, violating the assessee's right to natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the COVID-19 period and the pending rectification application as sufficient cause. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind, violating the assessee's right to natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and found that the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's applications without due consideration and without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the divergent views on bogus purchases and the nature of the assessee's business, decided to make a lumpsum disallowance of 3% of the alleged bogus purchases. This decision is not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the assessee's ownership of unexplained money or the actual incurrence of commission expenses. The Tribunal found that the transactions were recorded in the books and made through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is applicable only when there is an actual flow of funds. Since no real funds were received by the assessee, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to the overseas agent were commission for procuring orders and follow-up, not technical services. Since the services were rendered outside India, the assessee had no obligation to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal held that receipts from professional services, which were substantial and customer-specific, were taxable as FTS. However, receipts from software subscriptions were not considered FTS or royalty. The appeals were partly allowed.
The tribunal found that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as the CIT(A) drew unilateral conclusions without confronting the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication de novo.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order due to non-submission of documents. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found the 8% profit rate to be high and directed the addition to be restricted to 4% of the total purchases, considering the assessee's average GP and to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a mere routine distributor and had not added any value to the imported goods. Therefore, the Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction, as confirmed by various High Court decisions.
The Tribunal noted that a similar appeal had already been heard by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the current appeal was considered a duplicate.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for de novo consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to pass orders on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for de novo consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to pass orders on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal agreed that the assessee's non-compliance was due to compelling reasons and not intentional. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to examine the documents furnished by the assessee and noted factual discrepancies. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment after considering the documents.
The Tribunal found no evidence that the appellant qualifies as a legal representative under the Act or has been proceeded against by the department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed at this stage.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as defective because the defects pointed out by the registry were not removed. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration after rectifying the defects.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three effective opportunities to present their case.
The Tribunal found the 8% profit rate to be high and directed the addition to be restricted to 4% of the total purchases, considering the assessee's average GP and to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The appellate order was cryptic and dismissed the appeal ex-parte without independent verification.
The Tribunal found that a lump sum addition of Rs. 1.90 lakhs would meet the ends of justice, providing relief of Rs. 13 lakhs to the assessee. Regarding Section 115BBE, it was held that the provision applies only to transactions on or after April 1, 2017, and the assessee should be assessed under normal provisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding unsecured loans by providing repayment evidence through banking channels, relying on judicial precedents. However, the issue of share application money additions was not fully resolved in the provided text, but the assessee's appeal was allowed, implying a favorable outcome for them on that point as well.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not fully discharged its onus, the possibility of cash turnover in the business could not be ruled out. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 4 lakhs was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was without jurisdiction as it was issued by an ITO when the declared income warranted jurisdiction by an AC/DC. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, acknowledging the possibility of communication gaps.
The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it did not explicitly state that the seized material pertained to the assessee and had a bearing on the determination of their total income, as required by law. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s 8% profit estimation was high. Considering the assessee's average GP of preceding and succeeding years, the Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to 2% of total purchases.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to 4% of the total undisclosed purchases, considering the assessee's average GP rate and to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration of facts and without applying its mind. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that receipts from professional services, which were substantial and customer-specific, were taxable as FTS. However, receipts from software subscriptions were not considered FTS or royalty. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was without jurisdiction as the escaped income was less than Rs. 50,00,000/- and more than three years had elapsed from the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable.
The ITAT found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than specific incriminating material. The tribunal noted a lack of actual evidence to support the on-money allegation against the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee could prove its claim of net profit nor could the Revenue establish a comparable for estimating at 5%. Therefore, in the interest of justice, a lump sum estimated net margin of 3% was applied to the turnover.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without applying its mind and without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was given an opportunity to be heard and furnish documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without applying its mind and without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration of facts and without applying its mind. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the remaining credits, including Rs 36,00,000 from Tapasya Hotels and Resorts Ltd and Rs 80,12,772 as closing bank balance, were adequately explained. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the matter afresh within three effective opportunities of hearing.