Loading ITAT cases…
55 orders · Page 1 of 2
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020' to settle their tax liability.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was not decided on merits by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present her case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach in similar cases to ensure substantial justice. The appeal was then remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 in the name of a deceased assessee is invalid and a nullity in the eyes of law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on such a notice are void ab initio.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased person is invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on such a notice are quashed for want of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee raised objections regarding the fair market value before the CIT(A), the issue required determination by the DVO. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for limited purpose of getting the fair market value determined by the DVO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and bonafide. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the entire bank deposit could not be treated as unexplained income without considering all sources of income. For the cash receipt, the Tribunal found the source explained by the sale of a vehicle, supported by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and bonafide. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and bonafide. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), noting the assessee's serious medical condition and referring to a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case. The matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and bonafide. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and bonafide. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and bonafide. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and bonafide. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and bonafide. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and bonafide. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and bonafide. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and bonafide. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable and bonafide. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), noting the assessee's serious medical condition and referring to a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case. The matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment after four years for AY 2008-09 and 2010-11 was invalid as there was no failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts. For AY 2011-12, no addition was warranted as the declared GP was better than the past average.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's declared NP rate was reasonable when compared to her husband's business and past history. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to 5% of the claimed expenditure.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh examination. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to present arguments regarding the cost of acquisition and the declaration of the transaction in the original return.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment after four years for AY 2008-09 and 2010-11 was invalid as there was no failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts. For AY 2011-12, no addition was warranted as the declared GP was better than the past average.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment after four years for AY 2008-09 and 2010-11 was invalid as there was no failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts. For AY 2011-12, no addition was warranted as the declared GP was better than the past average.
The Tribunal held that client code modifications due to genuine punching errors by the broker are permissible, especially when the amount is negligible compared to the total turnover and the assessee is not involved. The additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 502 days, stating the mistake was bonafide and on the part of the tax consultant. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that the fee levied under Section 234E was not covered by the exceptions in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 due to low tax effect. The Tribunal found that the processing by CPC-TDS is part of the Income Tax Department and not an external agency, and the constitutional validity of Section 234E was not challenged before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that the fee levied under Section 234E was not covered by the exceptions in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 due to low tax effect. The Tribunal found that the processing by CPC-TDS is part of the Income Tax Department and not an external agency, and the constitutional validity of Section 234E was not challenged before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). This was to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to explain the 2-year gap between the mother's property sale and the gift, especially as the assessee intended to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and details, especially in light of their intention to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in treating the entire bank credits as turnover, as the assessee had provided satisfactory explanations and documentary evidence for the sources of these deposits. The addition made by the AO was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was in light of the assessee opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and the revenue not objecting to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the matter was not decided on merits and the assessee deserved another opportunity. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh examination after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that insignificant defects in supporting evidence do not warrant rejection of books of account. It also found no justification for estimating income at 8% and directed the AO to allow the full finance cost claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable and sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The explanation of 'non-realization of impact' was considered vague and exhibited negligence.
The Tribunal held that capital gains should be computed first, and deductions under Section 54F should be allowed before intra-head adjustments for losses. The long-term capital loss on shares should be allowed to be carried forward.
The Tribunal held that since the basis for the penalty, which was the quantum addition, was significantly reduced by the ITAT, the penalty also needs to be restricted to the same extent. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be restricted to Rs. 28,240/-.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) due to non-speaking orders and lack of merit-based decision. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing another opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the cash deposit addition, finding it to be a genuine data entry mistake. However, it remanded the issue of bifurcation of capital gain and business income for re-verification of the conversion date of capital asset to stock-in-trade.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) due to non-speaking orders and lack of merit-based decision. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing another opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that failure to consider a non-jurisdictional High Court judgment, especially when not cited by the party, does not constitute a mistake apparent on record, particularly when the Tribunal relied on its jurisdictional High Court's decision. The power under Section 254(2) is limited to rectifying mistakes, not reviewing merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of books of account was justified. However, the estimation of net profit rate by the AO was not based on proper grounds and lacked comparability. The separate additions for other income were also deleted as they were already part of the profit and loss account.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of books of account was justified. However, the estimation of net profit rate by the AO was not based on proper grounds and lacked comparability. The separate additions for other income were also deleted as they were already part of the profit and loss account.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of books of account was justified. However, the estimation of net profit rate by the AO was not based on proper grounds and lacked comparability. The separate additions for other income were also deleted as they were already part of the profit and loss account.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding the restricted disallowance of Rs. 1,30,000/- to be reasonable and justified given the lack of proper vouchers, cash payments, and the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory explanations.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance of prior period expenses and business promotion/welfare activities. It held that these expenses were crystallized in the current year and had a nexus with the business interest.