Loading ITAT cases…
140 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had granted relief without proper verification, such as calling for a remand report or discussing the parties' rights and obligations. The Tribunal deemed it proper to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal is hearing an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which dismissed the assessee's appeal. The grounds of appeal relate to the applicability of Section 273B and the validity of a penalty order due to non-mention of a specific date of non-compliance.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The assessee was granted another opportunity of hearing to present its case and file necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D. Since this was admittedly absent in the present case, the penalty cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The assessee was granted another opportunity of hearing to present its case and file necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the grounds of delay without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay, including the firm's closure and partner's relocation, to be plausible.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals, citing the firm's closure and partners' unavailability. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals on technical grounds was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The assessee was granted another opportunity of hearing to present its case and file necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the alleged cash payment for the property purchase did not fall within the Assessment Year 2020-21, as the sale deeds for the relevant properties were registered in the financial year 2018-19 (AY 2019-20). Therefore, the addition made for AY 2020-21 was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The assessee was granted another opportunity of hearing to present its case and file necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) committed an error by deleting the addition based on additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to verify and examine it. This action was deemed a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is also given an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn after considering the withdrawal application filed by the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if their case was not accepted under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of non-payment of advance tax, especially when the assessee explained the cash deposits related to the sale of old cars, resulting in a loss. The Tribunal found that the condition for advance tax payment is applicable only when there is an actual liability.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their request under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application for reinstatement if the scheme's benefit was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits, which is contrary to the settled position of law. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard, subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- as costs for negligence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not reconcile the entries in the seized documents with the income declared in the returns for the HUF and his father's name. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the specific exclusion of power generation companies from the benefits of Sections 32AC and 32AD, as indicated by the legislative intent and wording, means these benefits cannot be extended to them. The Tribunal found that previous judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee did not directly interpret these specific sections in the present context.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify claims related to depreciation on non-compete fee and film software library. Regarding subscription revenue, the Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the assessee could not adequately explain the shortfall in revenue recognized for March.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the applications by the CIT(E) on purely technical grounds of filing an incorrect form (Form 10AB instead of Form 10A) and selecting inappropriate section codes was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had explained the reasons for this error, attributing it to a technical mistake and ambiguity in the law, and that there was no intention to obtain undue benefit. The assessee had also filed the application within the prescribed due date. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) should have either considered the application on merits or directed the assessee to file a correct application. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the issue back to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to allow the assessee to file a correct application in Form 10A with the appropriate codes and consider it as if it was filed on the original date of filing (June 29, 2024), deciding the issue on merits for registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the assessee should not be deprived of registration due to an inadvertent error.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on late deposit of TDS is not an allowable business expenditure. It also found that certain unrecorded payments were either reflected as projections or could be justified by the assessee's sufficient cash balance.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had previously dropped proceedings initiated by an earlier notice under Section 148 based on the same material, without any intervening fresh material or circumstances beyond his control.
The Tribunal held that the notices and orders were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) outside the faceless mechanism, making them bad in law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat deficit stock as unaccounted sales and sustained the estimation of profit at 6.31% based on the assessee's own declared gross profit. The Tribunal also upheld the sustained additions towards unexplained cash deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the potential for gross injustice due to the inflated income assessment caused by technical glitches. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on late deposit of TDS is not an allowable business expenditure. It also found that certain unrecorded payments were either reflected as projections or could be justified by the assessee's sufficient cash balance.
The Tribunal, noting that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity in the interest of substantial justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is also directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that a return filed under Section 153A does not override the requirement of filing the original return under Section 139(1) on or before the due date to claim carry-forward of losses. The decision of the Supreme Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Wipro Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO after the CBDT notification was invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found the CIT (Exemption)'s order to be non-speaking, cryptic, and mechanical, lacking specific findings or material analysis to support the rejection of the permanent registration application. It held that such an order, passed without a reasoned basis, violates the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh, reasoned decision after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even when dismissing it ex parte for non-prosecution, by framing points of determination. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause. It then set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s order, remanding the matter back for reconsideration of the Section 12AB registration application, instructing to consider all relevant facts and provide an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order was based on incorrect facts as the depreciation claim in the assessee's return was verified by the AO and consistent with the P&L account. Furthermore, the assessment order was passed against a non-existent entity post-merger.
The Tribunal held that the conditions precedent for cancellation of registration were not satisfied. The allegations made by the PCIT were found to be devoid of merit, and the order cancelling the registration was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that while receipts for corpus donations mentioned the purpose, evidence of actual utilization and proof of contractual obligation for the expenses disallowance were lacking. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the Valuation Officer is statutorily obligated under Section 142A(6) to submit its report within six months, which was not done for over three years. Therefore, the AO's determination of capital gain based solely on stamp duty value was unsustainable. The case was set aside to the AO with directions to either consider the DVO report if received within the statutory timeline or, if not, to adopt the actual sale consideration disclosed by the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s sustained additions for sales promotion expenses and depreciation, as the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal, deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) as the primary addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA(4) for profits derived from the development of infrastructure facilities. The CIT(A)'s order sustaining the addition was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and failed to discuss or verify the evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication, directing the AO to provide proper opportunity, examine all documents, and pass a reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the CPC should verify the revised return and provide reasons for computing a higher income. An opportunity should be given to the assessee before making any adjustments to the returned income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue of cash deposits was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, with a direction to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.