Loading ITAT cases…
56 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the lockdown due to COVID-19 and the assessee's submission of sufficient cause. The Tribunal then restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, stating that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders, depriving the assessee of contesting the case. In the interest of natural justice, the case was remanded back to the AO to consider the evidence filed before the Tribunal and provide another opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed its audit report and Form 29C before the due date for filing the return. Considering the affidavit explaining the 10-day delay due to the Covid-19 period and the impression that the Supreme Court had extended deadlines, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind to the issue of unsecured loans and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal also noted that the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme application was finalized, which should have abated further proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative could not present necessary documents before the lower authorities despite opportunities. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give one more chance to the assessee to safeguard their interest by restoring the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that interpolation of unaccounted sales for the entire year without specific evidence is not justified, especially in light of Supreme Court decisions. The addition for initial investment was also deleted due to lack of incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that the addition for agricultural land was not substantiated due to conflicting evidence and retraction of the statement. For loan advances, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal by reducing the addition based on verifiable sources of funds.
The Tribunal held that the addition for agricultural land was not substantiated due to conflicting evidence and retraction of the statement. For loan advances, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal by reducing the addition based on verifiable sources of funds.
The Tribunal held that the source of the Rs. 2 lacs advance payment was out of additional funds received in cash from the sale of a property and sale of shops. The affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the source was not discredited by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as the assessee retracted their statement within a reasonable time, and the seller confirmed selling the property to third parties. No evidence was found to prove the assessee paid Rs. 20 lacs for the property.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the correctness of its income computation and reconciliation of receipts before the AO and PCIT. Therefore, the PCIT's order holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the AO should have conducted a deeper inquiry into the matter, especially concerning the assessee's claim of being an 'entry operator' and the reliance solely on an investigation wing report. The Tribunal restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest, especially when no exempt income was earned. Therefore, the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 and directing the addition under Section 14A.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the sufficient cause shown by the assessee regarding the incorrect email notice. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to issue a fresh notice and decide the issue after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue of calculating adjusted total income for AMT purposes was not a 'mistake apparent from the record' that could be rectified under Section 154. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in confirming the AO's order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee corrected bona fide mistakes by revising income computations during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars with willful intent was not established.
The Tribunal held that the assessee corrected bona fide mistakes by revising income computations during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars with willful intent was not established.
The Tribunal held that the assessee corrected bona fide mistakes by revising income computations during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars with willful intent was not established.
The Tribunal held that the assessee corrected bona fide mistakes by revising income computations during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars with willful intent was not established.
The Tribunal held that the assessee corrected bona fide mistakes by revising income computations during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars with willful intent was not established.
The Tribunal held that the assessee corrected bona fide mistakes by revising income computations during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars with willful intent was not established.
The Tribunal held that the assessee corrected bona fide mistakes by revising income computations during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars with willful intent was not established.
The Tribunal held that the assessee corrected bona fide mistakes by revising income computations during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars with willful intent was not established.
The Tribunal held that the assessee corrected bona fide mistakes by revising income computations during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars with willful intent was not established.
The Tribunal held that the assessee corrected bona fide mistakes by revising income computations during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars with willful intent was not established.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was illegal as the issues were already considered during the original assessment. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds related to disallowance of corpus donations and capital expenditure on an inverter, finding the assessee's submissions and evidence satisfactory. However, other grounds were dismissed or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loan was sufficiently supported by evidence like account payee cheques, interest payment, TDS deduction, and repayment, thus deleting the addition. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was upheld due to lack of supporting evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee corrected bona fide mistakes by revising income computations during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars with willful intent was not established.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of estimating profit at 4% without rejecting the books of accounts was not in accordance with the law. The CIT(A) also failed to provide findings on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had not clearly established the service of notices and that the assessee may not have had adequate opportunity. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the NFAC, directing it to decide the appeal afresh after considering the documents on record and providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had decided the appeal without considering the documents submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the capital gains from penny stock transactions. Citing the Calcutta High Court's decision in PCIT vs Swati Bajaj & Ors., the Tribunal found that the assessee miserably failed on the point of genuineness, even if identity and creditworthiness were accepted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lethargy and non-cooperation despite opportunities. However, it restored the appeal to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing one more opportunity for hearing, while imposing costs on the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the reopening of assessment was illegal because the additions made were not based on the reasons recorded for reopening, violating the principles of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an illiterate rural lady, was deprived of contesting her case before the lower authorities due to non-receipt of notices at her correct address. Following a similar precedent, the Tribunal decided to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty under Section 271F. It found that the assessee, being illiterate and acting as a power of attorney holder for a property sale without personal gain, had a reasonable cause for not filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The assessment order was passed after due inquiry, and the issue of Section 14A disallowance had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous years by the ITAT.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for inter-head adjustment of surplus and deficit from different activities, thereby reducing the taxable income. The penalty appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the lower authority to grant consequential relief.
The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the disallowance of interest expenses in accordance with law, allowing the assessee's claim in the year under consideration if the requisite Form 26A is filed and verified. This was based on a previous decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be allowed the benefit of Section 11 as registration under Section 12AA was granted before the appellate order. The subsequent grant of registration was considered to operate retrospectively for pending assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for inter-head adjustment of surplus and deficit from different activities, thereby reducing the taxable income. The penalty appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the lower authority to grant consequential relief.
The Tribunal held that the communication of the assessment order to the assessee is essential for its validity. Since the order was served much after the limitation period, it was considered time-barred.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's inconsistent stand and the denial by Amit Goyal, making it difficult to ascertain the true owner. While the lower authorities confirmed the addition, the Tribunal felt it was in the interest of equity to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested an opportunity to submit further documents and explanations to the CIT(Exemption) regarding its registration. The Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the liberal approach adopted by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal did not go into the merits of the case but restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal should be allowed. The Tribunal considered the judicial decisions cited, particularly the Rajasthan High Court's decision in CIT vs. Rameshwar Prasad Kacholia, which allowed relief based on disadvantages affecting the property's fair market value. The Tribunal found that the presence of the IOCL Gas pipeline passing through the middle of the land and the restrictions imposed by the P&MP Act constituted significant disadvantages. Therefore, a 25% deduction in the DLC rate, as claimed by the assessee, was considered fair, reasonable, and justified. The Tribunal concluded that the sale consideration of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- was in agreement with the valuation report obtained by the assessee before the transaction, demonstrating due care. Consequently, no addition was required to the assessee's returned income. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT (Exemptions) provided several opportunities, it would be in the interest of natural justice to remand the matter. The CIT (Exemptions) is directed to decide the matter afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.