Loading ITAT cases…
183 orders · Page 2 of 4
The assessee's counsel, on instructions, requested to withdraw all the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee's counsel, on instructions, requested to withdraw all the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee's counsel, on instructions, requested to withdraw all the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee's counsel, on instructions, requested to withdraw all the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, a concluded assessment cannot be disturbed. Therefore, additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing the AO an opportunity to comment on the documents submitted by the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that allowing the assessee to produce the documents before the CIT(Exemption) would enable a decision on merits. Technicalities should yield to substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly explained the source of payments to sundry creditors and that there were no fresh creditors in the year under consideration. The Tribunal also noted that the NFAC had previously considered and rejected a proposed addition under Section 69A. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the assessee had a reasonable belief that the issue would be addressed during the scrutiny assessment. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it did not deal with the matter on merits. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal condoned a two-day delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to refile the application for registration under Section 80G. The CIT(E) was directed to afford a hearing before deciding the matter.
The Tribunal condoned the 17-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the reasons provided were considered reasonable. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication ('denovo').
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the IT Act by not disposing of the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee. The order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the addition as the property details in the agreement to sell differed materially from the sale deed. Furthermore, the addition was based on a photocopy of an agreement and third-party statements without cross-examination, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the draft assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act, considering the date of issuance of the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal quashed the AO's order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided a sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present their case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to immunity from penalty under Section 270AA(3) as it had paid the tax within one month of the assessment order. A mere delay in submitting the physical copy of the challan would not disentitle the assessee from this immunity.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to opening balances of unsecured loans and cash deposits during demonetization. Additions related to Section 40(a)(ia) and depreciation were also affirmed. The issue of agricultural income was remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that merely because an addition is made or sustained, it does not automatically imply furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had disclosed all facts, and the issue of share premium valuation was debatable, especially since the High Court admitted the appeal on a question of law.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) in principle but found that the non-reflection of a specific amount in the balance sheet needed verification. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the non-prosecution was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control and that allowing an opportunity would lead to a decision on merits. Therefore, a fresh opportunity was granted.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly noted that an appeal cannot reduce income below the returned income, disallowing the claim would result in collecting more tax than legally authorized. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have directed the AO to verify and allow the claim.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits might have originated from the sale of a property, and the assessee had filed additional evidence to support this claim. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the case was not heard on merits by the CIT(A) and, in the interest of natural justice, restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the income derived from the operations conducted after the plantlets left the laboratory, until the sapling is sold in nurseries, is agricultural income. The initial laboratory stage was not considered agricultural.
The Tribunal held that the income derived from the operations conducted after the plantlets left the laboratory, until the sapling is sold in nurseries, is agricultural income. The initial laboratory stage was not considered agricultural.
The Tribunal held that the income derived from the operations conducted after the plantlets left the laboratory, until the sapling is sold in nurseries, is agricultural income. The initial laboratory stage was not considered agricultural.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the letter filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the letter filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the letter filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the letter filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the letter filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could explain the source for a credit card payment of Rs. 1,82,950/- made on 22/06/2016, as it was likely funded by a gift from his father. However, the addition for the earlier payment of Rs. 3,83,000/- on 20/05/2016 was upheld.
The assessee's counsel filed a letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the letter filed by the assessee.
The assessee's counsel filed a letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the letter filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was done beyond 4 years without establishing the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Consequently, the addition made on account of cash deposits was quashed.
The assessee's counsel filed a letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee's counsel filed a letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee's counsel filed a letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee's counsel filed a letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee's counsel filed a letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the assessee's explanation solely for lack of GST registration was erroneous, as registration is only mandatory above a certain turnover threshold. However, the assessee also failed to provide supporting evidence for business receipts and profit.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, it directed the deletion of Rs. 54,57,050/- from the addition as it was already assessed in the hands of the assessee's wife. The remaining addition of Rs. 25,05,164/- was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to the AO's failure to arrive at a clear satisfaction regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was to be levied, and the issuance of a vague show-cause notice. Therefore, the penalty was liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS, intended to curb tax evasion through cash transactions, cannot be extended to a genuine transaction like the sale of agricultural land, which is not taxable. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D was deleted.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities should decide appeals on merits even in ex-parte proceedings. Since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without discussing the merits, the case was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not decide the issue on merits and the assessee did not get an opportunity to explain the discrepancy at the assessment stage. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in completing the assessment by overlooking the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation during the pandemic. The CIT(A) also failed to prove proper service of notices and did not decide the appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6).