Loading ITAT cases…
74 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that it was unjust for the CIT(A) to reject the additional evidence solely based on Rule 46A(1) non-compliance. The assessee's contention that they were not required to maintain books of accounts under Section 44AE and that most creditors were opening balances warranted consideration on merits.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. The assessee's consistent non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable due to the immunity granted by the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal held that the entire unrecorded sales should explain the excess cash found, not just the GP element. The addition for alleged cash loans was deleted as the supporting document was considered a 'dumb document'.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a non-resident, and the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 144C by not issuing a draft assessment order. Consequently, the assessment order was legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO lost jurisdiction to frame the assessment under Section 147 as no addition was made on the grounds for which the reassessment was initiated. Furthermore, the addition of Rs. 4,70,000/- was deleted as evidence was produced showing the trust had already paid taxes on its income.
The Tribunal held that the documents found were insufficient to prove a completed jewellery purchase, especially since the jewellery itself was not found. The addition was based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal held that the documents found were insufficient to prove a completed jewellery purchase, especially since the jewellery itself was not found. The addition was based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on LIC commission expenses was justified as no separate books were maintained. However, the NCDEX penalty was deemed compensatory and allowable business expenditure, and the interest disallowance was deleted as borrowed funds were used for business purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the appeal. While acknowledging the potential applicability of Section 44AD, the Tribunal could not accept the claim due to the absence of information regarding the source of cash deposits and supporting business documentation.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for VSVS 2-24 and Form-4 had been issued. The respondent had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The CIT(A) quashed the notice under Section 148 and the consequential assessment order, relying on Rajasthan High Court judgments that held JAOs lack jurisdiction to issue such notices under the faceless regime. The Tribunal, acknowledging that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the legal issue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits and had allowed the appeal solely on technical grounds. To ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to keep proceedings in abeyance until the legal issue regarding the notice was decided by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that guarantee commission is a contractual and voluntary payment, not a fee or charge exclusively levied by the state government. Similarly, interest and penalty on delayed GST payments were found to be compensatory and not covered by Section 40(a)(iib).
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAC(1) had no basis as the underlying addition was deleted. For the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d), the Tribunal found it unfair to levy penalty when the assessee had reasonable cause for non-compliance and the assessment itself was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAC(1) had no basis as the underlying addition was deleted. Similarly, the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was deleted as the assessee had reasonable cause for non-compliance, and the assessment itself was found unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits and had allowed the appeal solely on technical grounds. To ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to keep proceedings in abeyance until the legal issue regarding the notice was decided by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits and had allowed the appeal solely on technical grounds. To ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to keep proceedings in abeyance until the legal issue regarding the notice was decided by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that an order passed under section 148A(3) is not an appealable order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as per section 253(1) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was technically defective and not admissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the surrendered income arose from business activity and confirmed it as income from other sources under Section 69. However, it ruled that the enhanced tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE was not applicable for AY 2017-18, directing tax at 30%.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to point out any significant infirmity in the assessee's books of accounts. The alleged anomalies in sales bills were found to be consistent throughout the year, and purchases were verified as genuine. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
The CIT(A) quashed the notice under Section 148 and the consequential assessment order, relying on Rajasthan High Court judgments that held JAOs lack jurisdiction to issue such notices under the faceless regime. The Tribunal, acknowledging that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the legal issue.
The CIT(A) quashed the notice under Section 148 and the consequential assessment order, relying on Rajasthan High Court judgments that held JAOs lack jurisdiction to issue such notices under the faceless regime. The Tribunal, acknowledging that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the legal issue.