Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 159 days, citing the assessee's lack of awareness, reliance on professionals, and change in committee members as sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's contention that he was abroad and therefore unaware of the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without obtaining the proper approval from the specified authority as required by Section 151, making the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission of some agricultural land details and prior acceptance of agricultural income. However, due to the manifold increase and lack of complete explanation, the addition was scaled down, not entirely deleted.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, acknowledging a potential accounting error. However, due to incomplete documentation, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a final opportunity for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the retrospective insertion of Section 147A by the Finance Act, 2026, clarified that the Assessing Officer (JAO) had the authority to issue notices under Section 148. Therefore, the notice and consequential assessment order were valid.
The Tribunal vacated the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs made under Section 69A, finding the assessee's explanation for cash withdrawals to be plausible. The issue of cost of improvement for capital gains was set aside to the AO for verification. Penalties related to these issues were adjusted accordingly.
The Tribunal vacated the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs made under Section 69A, finding the assessee's explanation for cash withdrawals to be plausible. The issue of cost of improvement for capital gains was set aside to the AO for verification. Penalties related to these issues were adjusted accordingly.
The Tribunal vacated the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs made under Section 69A, finding the assessee's explanation for cash withdrawals to be plausible. The issue of cost of improvement for capital gains was set aside to the AO for verification. Penalties related to these issues were adjusted accordingly.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the motor car gift as a business expense. It found that the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that the gift was for business promotion or to establish a nexus with business generated.
The Tribunal condoned the 148-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's explanation for the delay reasonable due to business closure. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations from the sister and brother, to explain the cash deposits as loan repayments. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that adverse inferences cannot be drawn solely from a 'dumb document' without independent corroborative evidence. Since the seized document was previously held to be a 'dumb document' in the seller's case, and no other evidence was presented, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a sufficient opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) due to improper service of notices. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a sufficient opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) due to improper service of notices. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate cash deposits as sales proceeds. It also noted that the disallowances were due to a lack of documentary evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the increased income was not bona fide as the Form 26AS did not show any variation in the gross interest income. Furthermore, the assessee's application for immunity from penalty under section 270AA was rejected as it was filed after the penalty order was passed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO misunderstood mercantile accounting principles regarding interest expenditure. It also found that the AO erred in making additions under Section 68 without properly considering the evidence provided by the assessee.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without a reasoned order. The CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if the assessee fails to appear.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The reasons provided were considered vague, general, and lacking bonafides, indicating negligence on the part of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as it failed to specify the limb of Section 271AAB under which the penalty was proposed. Consequently, the penalty order passed based on this invalid notice was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was within his rights to claim the indexed cost of improvement when filing a revised return in response to a notice under Section 148. However, the AO had not verified the quantum of this claim.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153C was valid as the search was initiated before April 1, 2021, and the deeming fiction regarding the date of receipt of seized material applies only for abatement of assessment years, not for the applicability of Section 153C itself. The Tribunal also found no merit in the contention regarding mechanical approval under Section 153D.
The Tribunal held that the loose sheet, being a 'dumb document' without corroborative evidence and not found with the assessee or vendors, cannot form the sole basis for addition. The Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proving understatement of consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to comply with the specific direction to facilitate cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The addition was based on Shri Ranga Rao's statement, and denial of cross-examination renders the order unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that notices sent to the email address provided by the assessee in Form No. 35 constitute valid service as per Section 282 of the Act and Rule 127 of the Rules. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be insufficient and lacking due diligence.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the assessee's unawareness of the assessment proceedings because the notices were sent to an old email ID of a former consultant. The CIT(A) should have condoned the delay.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as per the first proviso to section 149 of the Act, which was introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the consequential assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing bona fide reasons. However, due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide supporting details, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have adopted a liberal view and condoned the delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file with a direction to condone the delay and redecide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, imposing a cost on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on April 7, 2022, for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to substantiate expenditure with documentary evidence, earning substantial commission income without any expenditure was unrealistic. The Tribunal estimated expenditure at 20% of gross commission receipts, considering the facts and circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the time limit prescribed by the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on April 9, 2022, was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It further held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation, rendering the reassessment order invalid.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it was not preceded by proceedings under Section 153A. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were also vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it was not preceded by proceedings under Section 153A. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were also vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation without allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to substantiate their claim regarding the date of receipt of the assessment order. The matter was set aside for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153C was valid as the search was initiated before April 1, 2021, and the deeming fiction regarding the date of receipt of seized material applies only for abatement of assessment years, not for the applicability of Section 153C itself. The Tribunal also found no merit in the contention regarding mechanical approval under Section 153D.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT(A) due to the mode of communication. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had made additions based on both deposits and withdrawals, which warranted further examination.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued on April 1, 2021, even if digitally signed on March 31, 2021, was invalid because it was issued after the effective date of the amended provisions and without following the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the assessee's bona fide reasons and the need for a liberal approach in such matters. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had vacated the addition made by the AO without sufficient basis. The matter was set aside to the AO for re-adjudication, with directions to consider fresh evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's belief that the assessee was a non-filer was factually incorrect, as the assessee had already filed a return of income. This incorrect premise vitiated the AO's jurisdiction under Section 147.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the time limit prescribed by the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act, as it stood after the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were quashed.