Loading ITAT cases…
70 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal restored the issue of delayed PF/ESI contribution to the AO for verification of payment dates and directed the AO to consider the assessee's suo motu disallowance to avoid double addition for the Section 37 disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to file objections to the draft assessment order within the prescribed time limit before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP has no power to condone such delays.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for not appearing before the CIT(A) (email going to spam) to be plausible. It held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it in limine.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional evidence and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal. The assessee was directed to be diligent in future proceedings without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO needs to verify if income was offered by individual constituents as per JV agreements before taxing the JV.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional evidence and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found inconsistency in the Assessing Officer's references regarding the amounts in question, creating confusion. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee to substantiate her claims.
The Tribunal held that Explanation 5A to Section 271 of the Act comes into play when additional income is disclosed due to seized material, making the assessee liable for penalty even if the income was accepted without variation.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the distinct instances of misreporting as enumerated under Section 270A(9). Therefore, the penalty order was quashed for violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not decide the merits of the assessee's appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the available documents and affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal restored the issue of personal expenses to the AO for further verification. It dismissed the assessee's ground regarding PF contribution, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding interest on customs duty, holding it as a deductible revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that livestock is not a capital asset but stock-in-trade, and therefore, gains from its sale should be treated as business income, disallowing indexation. The issue of purchase of livestock charged to P&L was remanded.
The Tribunal restored the issue of personal expenses to the AO for further verification. It dismissed the assessee's ground regarding PF contribution, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding interest on customs duty, holding it as a deductible revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that livestock is not a capital asset but stock-in-trade, and therefore, gains from its sale should be treated as business income, disallowing indexation. The issue of purchase of livestock charged to P&L was remanded.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the documents and affording an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in an identical case. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment after obtaining a rectified return.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not decide the merits of the assessee's appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the available documents and affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that livestock is not a capital asset but stock-in-trade, and therefore, gains from its sale should be treated as business income, disallowing indexation. The issue of purchase of livestock charged to P&L was remanded.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss or decide the merits of the appeal, having decided it ex-parte due to the assessee's non-representation. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no adjustment under section 143(1)(a) can be made without giving the assessee an opportunity to respond to the proposed adjustment. Since the assessee did not receive a notice and opportunity to respond before the adjustment, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence regarding the cash deposits. The penalty appeal was also remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and a minor delay should not lead to the denial of FTC. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowance of the claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, setting aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits, considering the assessee's health and the interest of justice.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence regarding the cash deposits. The penalty appeal was also remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not mandatory. The FTC cannot be denied if Form 67 is filed before the completion of assessment proceedings, even if belatedly.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that if the stamp duty value is higher than the DVO's valuation, the DVO's valuation should be followed. The assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the second JDA was merely an assignment of development rights and did not constitute a transfer of the capital asset. Therefore, no capital gains tax was applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the second JDA was merely an assignment of development rights and did not constitute a transfer of the capital asset. Therefore, no capital gains tax was applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the previous order was passed without due cognizance of binding High Court judgments, constituting a mistake apparent on record. Consequently, the previous order was recalled and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the second JDA was merely an assignment of development rights and not a transfer of the capital asset. Following previous consistent rulings on identical facts, the Tribunal found no transfer of land occurred in the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order, acknowledging the assessee's plea that his statement was not duly considered and that he is willing to cooperate. The case was restored to the AO for a fresh look, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer became functus officio after passing the first penalty order, making the second order invalid. It also stated that merely making a claim that is not accepted by the Revenue does not automatically attract penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee would not benefit from ex parte proceedings and that granting an opportunity would allow the case to be decided on merits. Therefore, the assessee was granted an opportunity to appear before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee failed to disclose the source of demonetization period deposits and provide plausible reasons for the fall in gross profit.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not obtained the prior approval of the JCIT/Addl. CIT before levying a penalty exceeding Rs. 10,000, which is a violation of Section 274(2). Therefore, the penalty order was not in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to examine the details of work contracts and payments made by the government. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, including seeking assistance from state government development agencies.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s order, finding no illegality in the rejection of the application for registration under Section 80G(5) due to the delay in filing Form 10AB. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application under the new regime.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee satisfactorily explained Rs. 4,90,000/- as cash withdrawals for household expenses, the remaining amount of Rs. 10,31,000/- remained unexplained. Therefore, the addition was confirmed to that extent.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji & others and the COVID-19 related condonation period. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee paid the tax, she failed to submit the required form due to oversight. Considering the assessee's prayer to submit additional documents, the Tribunal quashed the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee claimed consistent accounting procedures for depreciation on fixed assets not claimed as application of income, which was accepted in earlier years. However, the CIT(A) noted the assessee failed to establish assets were not purchased from accumulated funds.
The Tribunal, in a corrigendum, clarified that expenditure incurred for business purposes, even if not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB), is allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal corrected a typographical error where 'Assessing Officer' was mentioned instead of 'ld.CIT(A)'. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination and a detailed speaking order.
The Tribunal corrected a typographical error where 'Assessing Officer' was mentioned instead of 'ld.CIT(A)'. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination and a detailed speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was supported by cogent reasons, including the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to COVID-19. Therefore, the delay should be condoned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one last opportunity to substantiate their case, with a direction to participate without adjournment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the interest of substantial justice over technical considerations. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.