Loading ITAT cases…
65 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions were deleted in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, the protective additions made in the hands of the assessee would not survive and consequently deleted them.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions were deleted in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, the protective additions made in the hands of the assessee would not survive and consequently deleted them.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions were deleted in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, the protective additions made in the hands of the assessee would not survive and consequently deleted them.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding agricultural income should be restored to the AO for fresh estimation, considering the assessee's representation. The issue of opening cash balance was also remanded to the AO for verification of the submitted cash-flow statement.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions were deleted in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, the protective additions made in the hands of the assessee would not survive and consequently deleted them.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions were deleted in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, the protective additions made in the hands of the assessee would not survive and consequently deleted them.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the deposits were from agricultural income and loans given to farmers. Since the documentary evidence submitted to the CIT(A) was not considered, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed replied to one of the notices from the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's explanations.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions were deleted in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, the protective additions made in the hands of the assessee would not survive and consequently deleted them.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on the same facts and records available during the original scrutiny assessment, constituting a change of opinion. However, the issue of disallowance of bonus was set aside to the AO for verification of actual payment in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the opening capital balance with evidence of assets acquired in preceding years. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) arbitrarily ignored these supporting documents and that the addition was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on the same facts and records available during the original scrutiny assessment, constituting a change of opinion. However, the issue of disallowance of bonus was set aside to the AO for verification of actual payment in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on the same facts and records available during the original scrutiny assessment, constituting a change of opinion. However, the issue of disallowance of bonus was set aside to the AO for verification of actual payment in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to undisclosed receipts, finding the MOU's enforceability and actual receipt of funds questionable. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, considering the assessee's status and evidence of gifts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard due to communication gaps. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to allow the assessee to furnish explanations and supporting evidence for the credit card expenses.
The Tribunal dismissed one appeal (ITA No. 447/Ind/2023) as time-barred due to a significant delay in filing. For the other appeal (ITA No. 77/Ind/2023), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee explained the nature and source of the cash receipts, the provisions of Section 69A were not applicable. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee explained the nature and source of the cash receipts, the provisions of Section 69A were not applicable. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the nature and source of the cash receipts, as evidenced by the seized documents and subsequent explanations. Therefore, the provisions of Section 69A were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the entire sale proceeds cannot be treated as profit. It emphasized that only the net profit embedded in the sales should be taxed, and that the AO's addition of the entire turnover was arbitrary and unjustified.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee explained the nature and source of the cash receipts, the provisions of Section 69A were not applicable. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the entire sale proceeds cannot be treated as profit. It emphasized that only the net profit embedded in the sales should be taxed, and that the AO's addition of the entire turnover was arbitrary and unjustified.
The Tribunal dismissed one appeal (ITA No. 447/Ind/2023) as time-barred due to a significant delay in filing. For the other appeal (ITA No. 77/Ind/2023), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the penalty for non-compliance with the initial notice was dissolved by subsequent notices and the assessee's reply. Furthermore, the show-cause notices for penalty did not specify non-compliance with the notice dated 25.11.2021, rendering the penalty order unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard due to communication gaps. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to allow the assessee to furnish explanations and supporting evidence for the credit card expenses.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that setting aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanding the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication was appropriate to ensure natural justice. The assessee was directed to participate in the hearings before the AO.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the mandate of Section 250(6) by not providing proper reasons for the decision, even though the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, noting a lack of effective opportunity for the assessee to be heard and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitting the appeals. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitting the appeals. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the additional evidence, including financial statements and purchase/sale vouchers, needed verification. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering these documents.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It partly allowed the appeal by directing the AO to allow a further deduction for the cost of improvement incurred by the assessee and to correct a mathematical error in the calculation of taxable gain.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without considering the subsequent rectification order passed by the CPC and the assessee's withdrawal application. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the order passed by the CPC under Section 154.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the initiation of proceedings as non-pleaded. It deleted additions related to cash receipts from land sales, finding them to be part of already assessed business income and thus avoiding double taxation. The addition for a refunded advance was also deleted. The issue of a forfeited advance was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that the CIT(E) had misinterpreted the provision regarding the time limit for filing the application for final approval under Section 80G(5). The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the addition itself was set aside and the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It held that since the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee before the notice under Section 148 exceeded the assessed tax, there was no tax sought to be evaded, making the penalty not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of the audit report along with the return is a procedural irregularity and not a reason to deny exemption. The assessment was not final when the audit report was filed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment records were not traceable, and both parties agreed to re-examine the matter. The case was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to resubmit all required details and documents.
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits, especially when the assessment order itself was ex-parte. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and a justice-oriented approach. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully with the AO.
The ITAT noted that subsequent ITAT orders had set aside the cancellation of the assessee's registration and approval. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemptions. The appeal was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and a justice-oriented approach. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to furnish evidence and make compliances. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully with the AO.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits due to non-compliance. Therefore, the impugned ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to submit evidence for the cash deposit.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rectification order under Section 154 was invalid. The AO had not invoked Sections 68 to 69D in the original assessment order, making the subsequent application of Section 115BBE through rectification impermissible.