Loading ITAT cases…
53 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing bonafide reasons such as the trust's remote location and the prior counsel's failure to communicate the rejection. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for the delay to be bonafide and beyond the assessee's control, citing the remote location of the trust and miscommunication by the previous counsel. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's evidence, such as packaging consumption analysis, and ignored submissions. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's own assessments of distributors corroborated the assessee's distribution chain, making the additions inconsistent.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's evidence, such as packaging consumption analysis, and ignored submissions. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's own assessments of distributors corroborated the assessee's distribution chain, making the additions inconsistent.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could be levied when the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed, implying the AO had condoned the earlier non-compliance by accepting the subsequently furnished details and returned income.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could be levied when the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed, implying the AO had condoned the earlier non-compliance by accepting the subsequently furnished details and returned income.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could be levied when the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed, implying the AO had condoned the earlier non-compliance by accepting the subsequently furnished details and returned income.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in treating the assessee's LTCG claim as bogus. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the onus and there was no evidence of collusion or involvement with accommodation entry providers.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bonafide and beyond the assessee's control, attributing it to the previous counsel's non-communication. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for it to be bonafide and beyond the assessee's control, particularly the non-communication by the previous counsel. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for the delay to be bonafide and beyond the assessee's control, citing the remote location of the trust and miscommunication by the previous counsel. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could be levied when the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed, implying the AO had condoned the earlier non-compliance by accepting the subsequently furnished details and returned income.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could be levied when the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed, implying the AO had condoned the earlier non-compliance by accepting the subsequently furnished details and returned income.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could be levied when the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed, implying the AO had condoned the earlier non-compliance by accepting the subsequently furnished details and returned income.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could be levied when the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed, implying the AO had condoned the earlier non-compliance by accepting the subsequently furnished details and returned income.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could be levied when the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed, implying the AO had condoned the earlier non-compliance by accepting the subsequently furnished details and returned income.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could be levied when the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed, implying the AO had condoned the earlier non-compliance by accepting the subsequently furnished details and returned income.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could be levied when the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed, implying the AO had condoned the earlier non-compliance by accepting the subsequently furnished details and returned income.
The Tribunal condoned the 30-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision regarding the COVID-19 period. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while the notice under Section 143(2) in a prescribed format was not mandatory, the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposits with documentary evidence. However, considering the arguable case on merits, the matter was remanded for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal restored both issues (royalty expenses and TDS on sub-contract expenses) back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The AO was directed to consider all submissions and grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored both issues (royalty expenses and TDS on sub-contract expenses) back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The AO was directed to consider all submissions and grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were unwarranted and perverse to the facts on record. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had invoked new charges not part of the AO's assessment.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were unwarranted and perverse to the facts on record. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had invoked new charges not part of the AO's assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits was unwarranted. It found that the assessee had provided explanations for the cash receipts and withdrawals, and that the AO's adverse view without proper confrontation was against the law.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were unwarranted and perverse to the facts on record. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had invoked new charges not part of the AO's assessment.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were unwarranted and perverse to the facts on record. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had invoked new charges not part of the AO's assessment.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were unwarranted and perverse to the facts on record. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had invoked new charges not part of the AO's assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits was unwarranted. It found that the assessee had provided explanations for the cash receipts and withdrawals, and that the AO's adverse view without proper confrontation was against the law.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits was unwarranted. It found that the assessee had provided explanations for the cash receipts and withdrawals, and that the AO's adverse view without proper confrontation was against the law.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits was unwarranted. It found that the assessee had provided explanations for the cash receipts and withdrawals, and that the AO's adverse view without proper confrontation was against the law.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits was unwarranted. It found that the assessee had provided explanations for the cash receipts and withdrawals, and that the AO's adverse view without proper confrontation was against the law.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits was unwarranted. It found that the assessee had provided explanations for the cash receipts and withdrawals, and that the AO's adverse view without proper confrontation was against the law.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits was unwarranted. It found that the assessee had provided explanations for the cash receipts and withdrawals, and that the AO's adverse view without proper confrontation was against the law.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred by considering only one sales point's cash book and ignoring the consolidated cash book of multiple sales points. The addition was based on presumption and suspicion without sufficient material evidence.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. It noted that since the assessee was already availing blanket exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad), the need for registration under Section 12AB did not arise at that stage.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. It noted that since the assessee was already availing blanket exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad), the question of registration under Section 12AB did not arise at that stage.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to sufficient cause and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to present evidence and justify its claims, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on assumptions and presumptions, contrary to facts. The CIT(A)'s observation that no evidence was furnished regarding the use of the declared amount for disputed payments lacked basis.
The Tribunal found that the AO's observation regarding the assessee's registration was factually incorrect. Since the assessee had valid registration, the disallowance was deemed illegal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer due to the ex-parte nature of the JCIT(A)'s order and the arguable merits of the case. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that for a 'Kaccha Arhatiya', only commission income constitutes turnover, not the sale value of crops sold on behalf of farmers, as per CBDT Circular 452. The AO was directed to examine Form 26AS and grant TDS credit for any mismatch.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to sufficient cause and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to present evidence and justify its claims, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of the appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that for a 'Kaccha Arhatiya', only commission income constitutes turnover, not the sale value of crops sold on behalf of farmers, as per CBDT Circular 452. The AO was directed to examine Form 26AS and grant TDS credit for any mismatch.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals. The learned DR had no objection to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in applying Section 68 to the realization of debtors, as these were merely collections of existing sales. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the AO's observations were general and lacked specific discrepancies, and that the assessee's sales and purchases were accepted by VAT authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals. The learned DR had no objection to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had indeed relied on facts from another case and rejected the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.