Loading ITAT cases…
90 tribunal orders from the Guwahati bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 90 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C for AY 2011-12 was bad in law as the seized documents did not constitute incriminating material for an unabated assessment. The addition under Section 68 was therefore quashed.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 68 of the Act for AYs 2011-12 to 2015-16 and 2017-18 were untenable both on facts and in law. The Tribunal noted that the AO's failure to personally examine witnesses and denial of the assessee's right to cross-examine departmental witnesses, on whose statements the AO relied, constituted a fundamental flaw, rendering the additions a nullity, as held by the Supreme Court in Andaman Timber (supra). Therefore, the deletion of these additions by the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld. Regarding the computation of interest under Section 234A, the Tribunal found that the AO had wrongly taken the original due date of filing returns under Section 139(1) instead of the due date prescribed in the notice under Section 153A. The AO was directed to re-compute the interest as per sub-section (3) of Section 234A, levying it only for the period commencing after the expiry of the time limit prescribed in the Section 153A notice. Ground (E) was allowed for statistical purposes. Ground (F) was dismissed as not pressed. Grounds (G) and (H) related to AY 2017-18 were dismissed as academic. Ground (H) concerning the adjustment of seized cash was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to grant credit as per Section 132B(iii).
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 68 of the Act for AYs 2011-12 to 2015-16 and 2017-18 were untenable both on facts and in law. The Tribunal noted that the AO's failure to personally examine witnesses and denial of the assessee's right to cross-examine departmental witnesses, on whose statements the AO relied, constituted a fundamental flaw, rendering the additions a nullity, as held by the Supreme Court in Andaman Timber (supra). Therefore, the deletion of these additions by the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld. Regarding the computation of interest under Section 234A, the Tribunal found that the AO had wrongly taken the original due date of filing returns under Section 139(1) instead of the due date prescribed in the notice under Section 153A. The AO was directed to re-compute the interest as per sub-section (3) of Section 234A, levying it only for the period commencing after the expiry of the time limit prescribed in the Section 153A notice. Ground (E) was allowed for statistical purposes. Ground (F) was dismissed as not pressed. Grounds (G) and (H) related to AY 2017-18 were dismissed as academic. Ground (H) concerning the adjustment of seized cash was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to grant credit as per Section 132B(iii).
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 68 of the Act for AYs 2011-12 to 2015-16 and 2017-18 were untenable both on facts and in law. The Tribunal noted that the AO's failure to personally examine witnesses and denial of the assessee's right to cross-examine departmental witnesses, on whose statements the AO relied, constituted a fundamental flaw, rendering the additions a nullity, as held by the Supreme Court in Andaman Timber (supra). Therefore, the deletion of these additions by the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld. Regarding the computation of interest under Section 234A, the Tribunal found that the AO had wrongly taken the original due date of filing returns under Section 139(1) instead of the due date prescribed in the notice under Section 153A. The AO was directed to re-compute the interest as per sub-section (3) of Section 234A, levying it only for the period commencing after the expiry of the time limit prescribed in the Section 153A notice. Ground (E) was allowed for statistical purposes. Ground (F) was dismissed as not pressed. Grounds (G) and (H) related to AY 2017-18 were dismissed as academic. Ground (H) concerning the adjustment of seized cash was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to grant credit as per Section 132B(iii).
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 68 of the Act for AYs 2011-12 to 2015-16 and 2017-18 were untenable both on facts and in law. The Tribunal noted that the AO's failure to personally examine witnesses and denial of the assessee's right to cross-examine departmental witnesses, on whose statements the AO relied, constituted a fundamental flaw, rendering the additions a nullity, as held by the Supreme Court in Andaman Timber (supra). Therefore, the deletion of these additions by the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld. Regarding the computation of interest under Section 234A, the Tribunal found that the AO had wrongly taken the original due date of filing returns under Section 139(1) instead of the due date prescribed in the notice under Section 153A. The AO was directed to re-compute the interest as per sub-section (3) of Section 234A, levying it only for the period commencing after the expiry of the time limit prescribed in the Section 153A notice. Ground (E) was allowed for statistical purposes. Ground (F) was dismissed as not pressed. Grounds (G) and (H) related to AY 2017-18 were dismissed as academic. Ground (H) concerning the adjustment of seized cash was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to grant credit as per Section 132B(iii).
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 68 of the Act for AYs 2011-12 to 2015-16 and 2017-18 were untenable both on facts and in law. The Tribunal noted that the AO's failure to personally examine witnesses and denial of the assessee's right to cross-examine departmental witnesses, on whose statements the AO relied, constituted a fundamental flaw, rendering the additions a nullity, as held by the Supreme Court in Andaman Timber (supra). Therefore, the deletion of these additions by the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld. Regarding the computation of interest under Section 234A, the Tribunal found that the AO had wrongly taken the original due date of filing returns under Section 139(1) instead of the due date prescribed in the notice under Section 153A. The AO was directed to re-compute the interest as per sub-section (3) of Section 234A, levying it only for the period commencing after the expiry of the time limit prescribed in the Section 153A notice. Ground (E) was allowed for statistical purposes. Ground (F) was dismissed as not pressed. Grounds (G) and (H) related to AY 2017-18 were dismissed as academic. Ground (H) concerning the adjustment of seized cash was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to grant credit as per Section 132B(iii).
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction before invoking Section 14A, as required by the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment vs. CIT. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed shown relevant expenses in its P&L account notes.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the Assessing Officer's remand report on additional evidence and also adjudicate the issue of jurisdiction raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained with due application of mind by the appropriate authority as required by law. Therefore, the notice was invalid.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form-5. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(26), they failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim. However, the turnover could not be considered as income, and the impugned order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the territorial jurisdiction ground, noting the assessee's failure to inform the AO. However, it admitted the additional evidence and remitted the issue on merits back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not issue a notice under Section 143(2) as there was no statutory requirement when the assessment was completed under Section 144 due to non-compliance. However, it was found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard during the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received the necessary form. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme by depositing the tax. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the departmental appeal pending.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and deposited the required tax. Therefore, there was no reason to keep the departmental appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that the AO erroneously added depreciation that was not claimed by the assessee. Since the assessee opted for presumptive taxation, claiming depreciation was not permissible, but more importantly, it was not claimed in the first place.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is attracted only when a payment or aggregate of payments to a person in a day exceeds Rs. 20,000. Since none of the individual bills/invoices exceeded Rs. 20,000, the disallowance was not sustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that keeping it pending would be pointless. This withdrawal is subject to the condition that if the scheme proposal is not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the order.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to the condition that if the scheme proposal is not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the order. This action does not impede the revenue authorities from accepting the scheme.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that there was no point in keeping it pending given the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal was subject to the condition that if the scheme proposal was not accepted, the assessee could apply for recalling the order.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and their compliance with the scheme's requirements.
The Tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and their compliance with the scheme's requirements.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and their compliance with the scheme's requirements.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment order bad in law. The approval was not a speaking order and did not demonstrate due consideration of the assessment details.
The Tribunal held that the omission of Clause (i) of Section 92BA by the Finance Act, 2017, meant that such transactions were never considered Specified Domestic Transactions. Therefore, the reference to the TPO and the subsequent additions were invalid. The matter was restored to the AO for adjudication in the normal course.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the AO to re-examine the case using a different accounting method after deciding the appeal on merits in favour of the assessee. The directions issued by the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is meant to set off the loss of investment in capital assets used for business. Even if the asset was not used in a particular year due to temporary discontinuance of manufacturing, it continued to be part of the block of assets purchased for business purposes and was depreciable.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and a certificate was issued by the Designated Authority.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of a certificate by the Designated Authority.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and their compliance with the scheme's requirements.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and their compliance with the scheme's requirements.
The Tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee's Director to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the assessee's compliance with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.