Loading ITAT cases…
88 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals) in the interest of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals) in the interest of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals), citing that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh examination of documents.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee might be eligible for exemption under Section 10(26) as a member of a Scheduled Tribe, this exemption does not apply to unexplained income or money. The assessee failed to establish a valid source for the cash deposits, rendering them ineligible for exemption.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to provide the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate, failing which the CIT(Appeals) could pass an order based on available records.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not furnished a valid contract and that the genuineness of the transaction was not adequately proved. However, considering the totality of facts and the assessee's request, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee was not in a position to file some evidence before the CIT(A) and, to ensure natural justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to decide the case on merits after the assessee files a correct Form 35. The ITAT also noted that the AO had initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals) in the interest of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT condoned the delay of almost eleven months, citing the principle of natural justice and the assessee's claim of being unaware of the proceedings. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) in the interest of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals before both the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal, citing the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the medical emergency. It was held that the assessee was not afforded an effective opportunity to present his case before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals), citing that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer and remitted the case back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to decide the issue after giving the assessee another opportunity to present its case, considering the pending appeal against FCRA cancellation.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to provide the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate, failing which the CIT(Appeals) could pass an order based on available records.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee might be eligible for exemption under Section 10(26) as a member of a Scheduled Tribe, this exemption does not apply to unexplained income or money. The assessee failed to establish a valid source for the cash deposits, rendering them ineligible for exemption.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and to examine the additional evidence.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(E) that the assessee failed to substantiate its activities as charitable under Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the income generated from bus services and rentals indicated a profit-oriented approach.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the medical emergency. It was held that the assessee was not afforded an effective opportunity to present his case before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time. It was held that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without affording an effective opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 324 days, finding that the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices constituted a sufficient cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing to ensure natural justice.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer and remitted the case back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to decide the issue after giving the assessee another opportunity to present its case, considering the pending appeal against FCRA cancellation.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to present the required documents. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to support the source of the cash, such as purchase or sale of milk, and the argument of frequent withdrawals for business needs was not substantiated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. However, it noted a lack of documentary evidence from the assessee to prove the source of income. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the increased business income due to the disallowance of cultivation expenses is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IE of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO should be deleted.
The Tribunal remanded the depreciation disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer for further examination of evidence. The ground related to TDS on audit fees was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not granted the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition, treating the entire sale proceeds of ₹1,10,47,949 as capital gains without any benefit for the cost of acquisition. The order of the AO, confirmed by the CIT(A), was not in accordance with law as the provisions of Sections 48, 49, and 55 were not followed. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue of the cost of acquisition was remanded to the AO. The AO was directed to recompute the capital gains after considering the cost of acquisition in the hands of the previous owner for the land gifted to the assessee. The assessee was directed to furnish necessary evidence for the cost incurred by the previous owner. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 were allowed, and Ground No. 3 was allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 4 was dismissed as the cost of acquisition in the case of gift is now specified in the Act. Ground No. 5 was addressed by the CIT(A), and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere. Other grounds were not adjudicated as they were not seriously argued or were general in nature. The issue of invalid reopening under Section 147 was not explicitly decided but was implicitly addressed by remanding the matter for proper computation.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO. The assessee is directed to furnish evidence that payees included the income in their returns and paid tax, which would negate the need for TDS and thus the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) has significant evidentiary value and cannot be disregarded. The Rs. 1 Crore declared in the return of income was considered undisclosed income due to its nexus with the search and subsequent confirmation, thus attracting the penalty.
The Tribunal, considering the interests of justice and the assessee's plea for another opportunity, decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to provide substantiating documents for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the AO properly exercised jurisdiction under Section 153C as the assessee was aware of the satisfaction note and the issue was not raised before lower authorities. The addition for bogus bills was sustained at 15% of the purchase amount as gross profit, and the addition for unexplained expenditure was restricted to the amount for which the assessee failed to provide reconciliation.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was aware of the proceedings for the Section 154 notice and the subsequent order dated 27.06.2022, as evidenced by a stay petition. Therefore, the CIT(A) wrongly condoned the delay without reasonable cause.
The Tribunal considered the submission that the appeal was a duplication of a previously adjudicated matter. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention and decided to dismiss the current appeal.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities to represent its case.