Loading ITAT cases…
48 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for dispute resolution.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders. While acknowledging the assessee's lack of diligence, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision on merits, citing principles of natural justice.
The assessee has filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal. The application states that the appellant has opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme.
The Tribunal held that a belatedly filed return, even if beyond the stipulated time, should be taken cognizance of. It further held that in cases where the AO accepts the returned income without any variation, the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is not legally necessary.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The provided affidavits lacked corroboration and the failure to produce the individuals for verification meant the source of cash remained unexplained.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that separate additions for unverified purchases and GP difference cannot be made simultaneously. It directed the AO to apply the GP rate as determined in earlier proceedings and deleted the addition for unverified purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the management change and lack of malafide intention. The Tribunal also admitted an additional ground of appeal concerning the disallowance under Section 40A(3).
The Tribunal held that separate additions for unverified purchases and GP difference cannot be made simultaneously. It directed the AO to apply the GP rate as determined in earlier proceedings and deleted the addition for unverified purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing identity and addresses of creditors, and routing funds through bank accounts. The addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- was considered unexplained, but the enhancement of stamp duty expenses was also questioned.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of an estimated addition, especially when there is no positive evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing identity and addresses of creditors, and routing funds through bank accounts. The addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- was considered unexplained, but the enhancement of stamp duty expenses was also questioned.
The Tribunal held that separate additions for unverified purchases and GP difference cannot be made simultaneously. It directed the AO to apply the GP rate as determined in earlier proceedings and deleted the addition for unverified purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, due to the assessee's non-appearance before the lower appellate authority, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that ITRs already in possession of the department cannot be considered incriminating material unearthed during search. It also found that the bills relied upon by the AO did not relate to construction activities by the assessee. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee had settled the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that ITRs already in possession of the department cannot be considered incriminating material unearthed during search. It also found that the bills relied upon by the AO did not relate to construction activities by the assessee. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not act with due diligence, the principles of natural justice require a decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate purchases from certain parties. The Tribunal noted that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) indicated accommodation entries were provided, and the assessee did not provide rebuttal evidence.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure was incorrect. It was found that the borrowed funds were partly used for business purposes, making the proportionate interest expenditure allowable as a business expense. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not disposed of the assessee's objections before passing the reassessment order.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue not objecting.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's request for an adjournment to file additional evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the interest received by the assessee from Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found no substance in the revenue's objection to the production of the certificate from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, noting it was a document in the public domain. The Tribunal relied on the certificate confirming Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank as a registered cooperative society. It further cited decisions of the Coordinate Bench in ITO vs. Shree Keshorai Patan Sahakari Sugar Mill, Bundi, and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT and Another vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society, which held that a cooperative bank is considered a cooperative society for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the interest income derived from such a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction. The disallowance and addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was non-cooperative, principles of natural justice require a decision on merits after providing a proper hearing. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order and did not consider the facts presented by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter has been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal, noting that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was non-cooperative, principles of natural justice require a decision on merits after providing a proper hearing. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure made under Section 154 was arbitrary and unjustified. The issue of whether borrowed funds were used for land purchase was debatable and could not be rectified under Section 154 without proper notice and opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's order under section 263 was beyond its scope. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries and applied his mind before passing the assessment order, thus it was not a case of change of opinion. The issues raised by the Pr. CIT were found to be adequately addressed or not requiring revision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's participation in the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and the absence of objections from the revenue.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to give the assessee one more opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee has the right to choose the method of valuation as prescribed under Rule 11UA of the IT Rules. The AO cannot impose a different method of valuation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action under Section 154 was not legally tenable as the mistake was not apparent from the record. The AO had not invoked Section 115BBE during the original assessment, and the applicability of Section 115BBE was a debatable issue.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the matter ex-parte without deciding on merits. To ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the availability of interest-free funds at the relevant point of time of making advances is crucial. Since the assessee failed to provide a fund flow statement to demonstrate the availability of such funds, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance to the extent of cash payments made to Navrang Oil Company, Ajmer, due to lack of substantiation. The remaining disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted. The disallowance of employee's ESI contribution was deleted as it was paid before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal acknowledged the repeated adjournments and the need for the assessee to be responsive. However, considering the matter was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) without merits, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that due to the assessee's rural address and potential postal delays, the assessment order might not have been received in time, leading to the delay. The CIT(A) should have considered the affidavit and a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263 as the AO had taken a possible view on a debatable issue after conducting necessary inquiry. The deduction under Section 54F cannot be denied merely because the construction was on agricultural land.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) is obligated to dispose of objections raised by the assessee against the reopening of assessment. Failure to do so renders the reassessment order unsustainable in law. The reassessment order was set aside due to this procedural defect.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits but dismissed it due to the assessee's absence. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not raise any objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 in the name of a deceased person is a nullity in the eyes of law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on such a notice are vitiated and liable to be quashed.