Loading ITAT cases…
65 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the appeal memo was not properly verified as per Rule 47(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as it was signed by the Authorized Representative instead of a Director. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was to allow for verification of additional evidence and consideration of new grounds challenging the reopening and the addition.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to make proper compliances and representations before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details like PAN, ITR, balance sheets, and bank statements of partners, along with confirmation of capital introduction. The AO's addition was considered arbitrary and unjustified.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's serious medical condition which prevented compliance, decided to grant an opportunity for a fresh assessment. The matter was restored to the AO to allow the assessee to make representations and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that if the revision order under Section 263 is quashed, any consequential assessment order based on it becomes invalid. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as meritless.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's individual share of the consideration was below the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000, he was not obligated to deduct TDS under Section 194-IA. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the case of the assessee's co-purchaser/brother.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the non-service of notices. It also held that the CIT(A)'s objections regarding non-payment of tax and the appeal being time-barred were unfounded. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the large cash deposit in specified bank notes was not sufficiently supported by detailed month-wise compilations of cash sales and expenditures. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides better particulars.
The Tribunal found that the bank account was in the name of 'M/s Maxima Traders Bhopal' and not 'M/s Maxima Traders Bhopal Pvt. Ltd.', and the company had not disclosed these transactions. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was a duplicate of another appeal filed for the same assessment year. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that an effective opportunity of hearing was not provided. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while depreciation on new assets was adequately verified, the AO's failure to inquire into the business purpose of the MD's foreign travel expenses rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. Therefore, the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was justified as per the amended provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, effective from Finance Act, 2021. The adjustment was also permissible under Section 143(1)(a)(iv).
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's prayer and agreed with the Revenue's request for remand. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for verification of facts and to take a considered view, with the understanding that the second order would be considered non-est if two orders were indeed passed.