Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 4 of 5
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 amended by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.
The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits, treating them as unexplained money. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, upholding the AO's additions.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of being abroad during assessment and appellate proceedings and the ex-parte assessment, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the time limit specified under the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the AO was quashed.
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 order was quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that it is incumbent on the AO to issue a notice under Section 143(2) after an assessee files a return in response to a notice under Section 148, for framing a valid assessment. The assessment framed without this notice was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the issue of capital gains computation from development agreements was highly debatable at the relevant time due to divergent judicial precedents. Therefore, merely because additions were confirmed, it did not automatically imply concealment of income for penalty purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without proper procedure and in not considering the applicability of Section 43CA. The case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and explanations regarding the withdrawal and subsequent deposit for property payment. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO was erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation was also defective and unsigned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the invalidity of the notice due to a short compliance period was without substance. The Tribunal also found no merit in the argument that non-compliance with section 142(1) notices was justified by the alleged invalidity of section 148 notices.
The Tribunal held that the entire capital gain arising from the property sale was taxable in AY 2016-17 as per the registered sale agreement date. However, it directed that credit for taxes paid/collected/deducted in AY 2017-18 related to this transaction should be allowed in AY 2016-17.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they were purely legal. It held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The matter of condoning the delay in filing the return was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that adverse inferences cannot be drawn solely based on a 'dumb document' without corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they were purely legal. It held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The matter of condoning the delay in filing the return was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons for the delay to be bona fide and supported by financial statements showing substantial losses. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the entire capital gain arising from the property sale was taxable in AY 2016-17 as per the registered sale agreement date. However, it directed that credit for taxes paid/collected/deducted in AY 2017-18 related to this transaction should be allowed in AY 2016-17.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was primarily due to non-compliance and that the assessee had provided supporting documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, and the consequential assessment order was also set aside for reconsideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting the actual delay was 56 days and the reasons provided (ill-health) constituted sufficient cause. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the FTC claim on merits.
The assessee's representative sought to withdraw the appeals. The Department did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was primarily due to non-compliance and that the assessee had provided supporting documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, and the consequential assessment order was also set aside for reconsideration.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was primarily due to non-compliance and that the assessee had provided supporting documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, and the consequential assessment order was also set aside for reconsideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause (medical reasons). The Tribunal also set aside the assessment proceedings to the AO for reconsideration, allowing the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause (medical reasons). The Tribunal also set aside the assessment proceedings to the AO for reconsideration, allowing the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a justice-oriented approach and the bona fide explanation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found the order rejecting the Section 80G approval to be a non-speaking order, lacking specific reasons or identification of deficiencies.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which formed the basis for the penalty, were subsequently deleted or the assessment proceedings were quashed by the Tribunal itself in earlier appeals, the penalties could not survive. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which formed the basis for the penalty, were subsequently deleted or the assessment proceedings were quashed by the Tribunal itself in earlier appeals, the penalties could not survive. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which formed the basis for the penalty, were subsequently deleted or the assessment proceedings were quashed by the Tribunal itself in earlier appeals, the penalties could not survive. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights, especially when the error was inadvertent and curable. The genuineness of the trust's activities was not in doubt, and it already had 12AB registration and provisional 80G approval.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting a significant portion of the addition as explained by the assessee. The penalty proceedings were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting a significant portion of the addition as explained by the assessee. The penalty proceedings were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The assessee's representative sought to withdraw the appeals. The Department did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 315 days, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. Subsequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) could proceed with the appeal in the absence of the assessee, he erred by not passing a speaking order with independent observations. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 681 days, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal also set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for cash received back from debtors amounting to Rs. 43,74,000/-, thus deleting this addition. However, for the amount of Rs. 3,82,500/-, the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that the estimated income was high-pitched. However, it also noted the assessee's lackadaisical approach before both lower authorities.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The assessee wished to pursue the cases before the lower authorities following the remittance by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The assessee wished to pursue the cases before the lower authorities following the remittance by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The assessee wished to pursue the cases before the lower authorities following the remittance by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The assessee wished to pursue the cases before the lower authorities following the remittance by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The assessee wished to pursue the cases before the lower authorities following the remittance by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 for one assessment year and directed the AO to re-evaluate additions related to cash receipts. For another addition concerning cash payment, the Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of original signed receipts.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adding two zeros to cash receipts without sufficient evidence for all entries. However, the Tribunal upheld the AO's estimation of 16% profit on unaccounted cash receipts, as the assessee failed to justify its lower estimation and the firm's own past profits were higher.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adding two zeros to cash receipts without sufficient evidence for all entries. However, the Tribunal upheld the AO's estimation of 16% profit on unaccounted cash receipts, as the assessee failed to justify its lower estimation and the firm's own past profits were higher.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the submissions filed by the assessee, which was contrary to the facts. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the disallowance of employee benefit expenses was arbitrary and that the transfer pricing adjustment was not justified as the interest rate paid was at arm's length. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was quashed.
The Tribunal, taking a lenient view, allowed one more opportunity to the assessee to produce supporting evidence and explanations for the cash deposit. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claims on technical grounds, as there is no bar for appellate authorities to entertain claims not made in the original return. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.