Loading ITAT cases…
82 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the tax liability under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s ex-parte and non-speaking order to be infirm. The matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal without giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect of non-e-filing violates principles of natural justice. Such a technical defect should not lead to dismissal without allowing rectification.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessees and decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessees and decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal agreed that penalty proceedings are independent of quantum appeals. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal agreed that penalty proceedings are independent of quantum appeals. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that TCS is a form of advance tax and should be allowed to the assessee if the corresponding income has been offered to tax and brought to tax in the assessee's hands, provided the main licensee has not claimed the credit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's rural background and non-receipt of notices. It also admitted the additional evidence and set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle their tax liability under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020".
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessees and decide the appeals on merits.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing. The tribunal emphasized the need for a speaking order on merits after granting the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order as it confirmed the penalty without addressing the merits of the additions/disallowances. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The ITAT decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A). The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing another opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the matter ex-parte without considering the merits due to non-compliance. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the difference in loss was due to a clerical error where income tax expenses were disallowed twice in the original return. This was a correction of a mistake, not a fresh claim, and therefore permissible.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application but, in the interest of justice, set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment request but, noting the matter was not decided on merits, remanded it to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This allows the assessee to pursue the settlement scheme.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application, noting that the matter had not been decided on merits. It deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the 20-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's age and solitary living. It also admitted additional evidence, including a development agreement and bank statements, which prima facie supported the assessee's explanation for the deposits.
The Tribunal held that taxing the same income twice is against the principles of natural justice. The AO is duty-bound to assess the correct income and cannot take advantage of an assessee's mistake leading to double taxation. The exclusion of the income from AY 2015-16 was therefore directed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving actual construction and the cost thereof. The sale deed was inconsistent regarding the property description, and the contractor's agreement and affidavit lacked corroborating evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was allowed. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148 and the consequent reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reassessment were flawed, including the incorrect assertion that no return was filed and the discrepancy in the name used for the notice and assessment. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries and acted on borrowed satisfaction. The Tribunal also observed that the AO incorrectly mentioned the sale of property without consideration. The Tribunal agreed with the AO's finding that only a plot of land was sold, not a constructed house, based on the sale deeds. Consequently, the claim for cost of construction and deduction under Section 54 was rightly rejected by the AO as unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the existence of a constructed house at the time of sale. While the AO acknowledged potential eligibility for Section 54F, the Tribunal stated that since the Section 148 notice was quashed, no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter for allowing deduction under Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee accepted the goods purchased from the railway as scrap and allowed TCS, its resale should also be treated as scrap. However, the issue of whether some sales were of new goods, not scrap, was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts under Section 145(3) due to the lack of proper documentation like stock registers and verifiable sales/expense vouchers. The Tribunal also declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s reduced trading addition, citing the lack of contemporaneous comparable data.
The Tribunal held that for speculative transactions, the turnover should be calculated as the aggregate of positive and negative differences, not the total volume of transactions, as per the ICAI Guidance Note. The assessee's turnover was found to be below the threshold requiring an audit.
The Tribunal found that the total credit in the assessee's bank account was less than the total receipts declared by the assessee. The Tribunal considered the cash deposit of Rs. 3,10,000/- to be reasonably explained by business receipts. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.