Loading ITAT cases…
43 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the reasonable cause of illness. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding the grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was vague and lacked bonafide. The conduct of the assessee in repeatedly filing appeals late, even before the CIT(A), did not inspire confidence.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of late deposit of ESI contribution is not sustainable as the payment was made before the end of the financial year. The issue is covered by various decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the delay due to the assessee's absence and time taken to consult counsel. The delay was condoned, and the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the outcome of the quantum appeal decided by the ITAT before passing the penalty appeal order. Since the CIT(A) did not consider the ITAT's order and passed a summary dismissal, the matter needs reconsideration.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present his case and produce documentary evidence. The CIT(A) is to decide the appeal afresh on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was vague and lacked bonafide. The conduct of the assessee in repeatedly filing appeals late, even before the CIT(A), did not inspire confidence.
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the e-appeal and set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings. However, the Assessing Officer failed to provide an independent finding for levying the penalty and did not grant the assessee a proper opportunity to present her case on merits. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to a change of address, noting the assessee had received the order. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in e-filing, considering it a technical breach and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the entry was a correction entry and, even if made in the wrong year, it did not affect the profit or income as it was also reflected in the closing stock. Therefore, there was no significant revenue effect for the year under consideration.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation was plausible given the facts. The source of foreign currency and its import were not disputed, and the deposit was made within days of arrival. Since the foreign income was exempt, its subsequent deposit in an Indian account could not be taxed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee had reasonably explained the source of the fixed deposit from the sale proceeds of his truck, directing the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E is mandatory and consequential to the delay in filing TDS statements. The Assessing Officer has no discretion to waive it, and the reasons for delay or financial hardship do not provide grounds for deletion.
The Tribunal found that the matter was not decided on merits and the assessee deserved another opportunity. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly examine the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the self-financing scheme. The matter was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the addition on account of undisclosed income based on the director's surrender. It also confirmed the additions for excess stock and short stock, rejecting the assessee's claims for netting or lower GP rates.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account due to the absence of documentary evidence for transactions. However, it directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a GP rate of 1.38%, based on the assessee's past performance.
The Tribunal found that the matter was not decided on merits and that the assessee deserved another opportunity. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that information received from the Income Tax Department's Investigating Wing does not fall under the exception clause (e) of Circular No. 03/2018, which pertains to external law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE, which taxes income under Section 69 at a higher rate, cannot be invoked via rectification if Section 69 was not invoked by the AO during the original assessment. The AO must first form an opinion and record satisfaction for Section 69 to apply.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable because the tax effect did not exceed the monetary limits prescribed in Circular No. 3/2018. The exception clause (e) of the circular, which allows appeals based on information from external law enforcement agencies, was not applicable as the information was received from the Investigation Wing of the Department.
The Tribunal held that information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department is not considered an external source as per exception clause (e) of Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed the prescribed monetary limits.
The Tribunal held that for Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to be applicable, the immovable property must be a capital asset. The definition of 'property' in Explanation (d) to Section 56(2)(vii) clarifies that it means a capital asset of the assessee, specifically immovable property being land or building or both. Therefore, if an immovable property, such as agricultural land, is not held as a capital asset, Section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. The Tribunal noted that Section 2(14) excludes agricultural land in India, subject to certain exceptions, from the definition of a capital asset. Since the lower authorities had not made any findings on whether the acquired agricultural land qualified as a capital asset, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to examine if the agricultural land falls within the definition of a capital asset. If it does not, the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) should be deleted. If it is determined to be a capital asset, the AO must refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the fair market value, as the assessee had objected to the DLC value, and then decide the matter afresh. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had now produced documentary evidence regarding its registration and income sources. Since this evidence was not available before the lower authorities and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the matter ex-parte without deciding on merits, despite the assessee seeking to file additional evidence. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that information received from the Department's Investigation Wing does not qualify as information from external law enforcement agencies as per Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal found that the matter was not decided on merits and the assessee deserved another opportunity. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 17 days, finding a reasonable cause due to the change of address. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction under Section 54F could not be denied without verifying the utilization of sale proceeds for house construction. The ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-appearance reasonable and that the matter was not decided on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and did not decide the appeal on merits, violating principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.