Loading ITAT cases…
214 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without providing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the reasons for the delay. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's bona fide reasons and ignorance of tax proceedings. The issue regarding the rate of tax under Section 115BBE for AY 2017-18 was decided in favor of the assessee, following High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after considering the explanation for the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost, due to the unfortunate circumstances faced by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1)(a) was on a debatable issue. As the Supreme Court decision on this issue was not available at the time of intimation, the AO had no authority to make such a disallowance. Therefore, the disallowance was set aside.
The Tribunal held that once a partner acknowledges capital contribution, the firm's onus is discharged. Any inquiry into the source of the partner's funds should be in the partner's individual assessment, not the firm's.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred by not adjudicating the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) to first consider the application for additional evidence and then decide the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not completed and authenticated within the prescribed limitation period, as evidenced by the electronic records and the Revenue's own report. The order was signed after the expiry of the limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the agricultural income from banana sales and the sale proceeds of HUF agricultural land. However, for other sources, the evidence was insufficient. Therefore, the addition was partly deleted.
The Tribunal held that the seized vouchers, along with the assessee's admission, established the cash receipts as unexplained money. The addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the assessee was engaged in regular business activity of dealing in immovable properties requires further inquiry. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow the cost of construction if the property was indeed constructed by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) as the assessee was pursuing alternative remedies. Since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals on limitation without adjudicating on merits, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 70 days was supported by sufficient cause and documentary evidence, and the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not effectively participated in the lower proceedings but had presented a reconciliation statement before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication to verify the reconciliation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) as the assessee was pursuing alternative remedies. Since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals on limitation without adjudicating on merits, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the seized vouchers, along with the assessee's admission, established the cash receipts as unexplained money. The addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A was upheld.
The Tribunal held that Rs. 35 lac of the investment was paid in preceding financial years as evidenced by the sale deed and bank statements, and thus deleted this addition. The remaining Rs. 17,82,000/- was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication due to insufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's claim of no taxable income. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that donations eligible under Section 80G cannot be denied solely because they are part of CSR expenditure, as there is no specific exclusion for such donations. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal ruled that disallowance is only permissible if the expenditure relates to income that does not form part of the total income, and since dividend income is now taxable, Section 14A cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was valid as the time for approval was extended due to time granted for the assessee's reply. However, regarding the addition, the Tribunal found that the estimation was made without proper documentary support and due to the assessee's non-cooperation.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) made a factual error by considering the assessee as a trust. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication of the delay condonation application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 76 days in filing the present appeal before it, finding sufficient cause. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the assessee's appeal due to an inordinate delay of 1,665 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that Section 69C requires an unsatisfactory explanation regarding the source of expenditure. Since the Assessing Officer did not doubt the source of payments, which were made from the assessee's bank accounts, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the demise of the assessee's sister. It found merit in the assessee's claim that the deposits were primarily sourced from retirement benefits and a reversed transaction was wrongly considered. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) made a factual error by considering the assessee as a trust. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication of the delay condonation application.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention of a bona fide mistake and restored the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider the assessee's explanation for the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred as it was issued beyond the period prescribed by the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the AO was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's claim of no taxable income. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's claim of no taxable income. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay, especially considering the assessee's claim of being illiterate and unaware of online proceedings. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the delay and merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had followed the procedure under Rule 46A by calling for a remand report from the AO before admitting additional evidence. Since the AO failed to submit the report, it was not a fault of the CIT(A) or the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution because notices were sent to an incorrect email address, and the assessee had also suffered a personal bereavement. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for the cash credits. However, the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasoning for disallowing the loans based solely on modest disclosed income of lenders or cash deposits in their accounts was insufficient. The AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries to disprove the genuineness of the transactions, shifting the burden of proof unfairly.
The Tribunal found that the company had confirmed the transactions belonged to it, supporting the assessee's explanation. Since the assessee could not effectively pursue the appeal before the CIT(A), the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the commission paid in cash was not allowable as a deduction because the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence beyond self-made debit vouchers. Similarly, development expenses were disallowed for lack of proper substantiation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had followed the procedure under Rule 46A by calling for a remand report from the AO before admitting additional evidence. Since the AO failed to submit the report, it was not a fault of the CIT(A) or the assessee.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of a comparable company (Aurigene) from the transfer pricing analysis for R&D services, allowing the appeal on this issue. It also directed benchmarking of interest on ECBs at LIBOR plus 3%, following its own prior decision. The issues related to the CPC's adjustments for bonus and brought forward losses were dismissed as they did not arise from the impugned assessment order and were pending before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the written submissions filed by the assessee. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while some amounts were rightly added as unaccounted receipts, the addition for cash receipts needed to be restricted to the differential amount not already disclosed by the assessee. The total addition was thus reduced.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the eligibility of each assessee and grant the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the eligibility of each assessee and grant the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of an appeal on merits with a reasoned order, even if the assessee fails to appear. The CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the eligibility of each assessee and grant the exemption.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the TP adjustment on coffee sales and interest on ECB loans. For delayed receivables, the Tribunal agreed with using LIBOR plus 200 basis points as the benchmark, following previous ITAT rulings.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the eligibility of each assessee and grant the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify individual eligibility and grant exemption accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion, reviewing the same facts and material already considered during the original scrutiny assessment. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the approval dates and the date of dispatch of the notice under section 148, indicating procedural irregularities.