Loading ITAT cases…
97 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner's revisionary action was not sustainable. The Assessing Officer had taken a possible view by assessing the income from holiday homes as business income, and the issue was debatable. Therefore, the revisionary order was reversed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the ex parte order by the CIT(A) and the short notice from the AO were not in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without properly adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits. The appellate authority must pass a reasoned order after hearing the assessee or considering submissions.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not sustainable in cases of regular assessment under Section 143(3) as it does not involve non-compliance with scrutiny notices. The penalty was deleted based on a co-ordinate bench's decision.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) due to sufficient cause for non-appearance and non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 250(6). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the tax determined under the scheme was not acceptable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars regarding enhanced monetary limits for appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the purchases could not be considered bogus as the assessee acted as an intermediary, provided detailed purchase and sales data, and made payments via cheque. The rejection of books of accounts was also deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly reopened the assessment as the amount of Rs. 1 crore was received in a prior assessment year as a loan/advance and was duly recorded in the assessee's balance sheet. Therefore, there was no tangible material to justify the reopening.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) was not permissible in law. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, agreeing that Section 43B is not applicable when the service tax liability is not debited to the profit and loss account. The Tribunal also noted the CIT(A)'s direction for future taxation of any difference if the liability was settled at a lesser amount.
The Tribunal clarified that the Assessment Year in the order is indeed 2015-16, correcting the erroneous mention in the copy. This corrigendum is to be considered part of the original order.
The Tribunal held that the entire addition of Rs. 21,92,100/- was erroneous. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to the combined peak credit of the two bank accounts (Rs. 2,06,690/-) and the trading profit calculated at the disclosed GP rate of 8.81% on the total deposits (Rs. 1,93,124/-).
The Tribunal held that the rule of consistency must be followed, especially when the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench in previous years. The Tribunal also allowed deduction for education cess and higher education cess.
The Tribunal held that the loss on forward foreign exchange contracts, used for hedging currency exposure, is not speculative and is allowable as a business loss. It also held that prior period ESI payments made in the current year are allowable under Section 43B. A partial disallowance was made for travelling and conveyance expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation and the deletion of disallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESIC. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal concerning the premium on FCCBs, allowing deduction on a pro-rata basis.
The tribunal held that an ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible in law. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation and the deletion of disallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESIC. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal concerning the premium on FCCBs, allowing deduction on a pro-rata basis.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done because the appeal was not disposed of on merits and there was a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without disposing of the appeal on merits, which is not permissible. The matter was therefore set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's proprietorship concern was engaged in money lending, as evidenced by interest paid and received. Therefore, the disallowance of net interest expenses was erroneous and directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, it found that the AO's ad-hoc disallowances of expenses were arbitrary as the assessee's books were audited and not rejected. For the work contract receipts, it held that only the profit element, not the gross receipt, should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard during the remand proceedings by the Assessing Officer and by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing sufficient opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought not to have passed an ex parte order without hearing the assessee or adjudicating the grounds on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without addressing the merits was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merit.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal to settle the dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' Scheme. The Tribunal granted permission for withdrawal as the revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) because it failed to comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) by not stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible in law. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the peak credit addition under Section 68 was incorrect, the profit from unaccounted sales could be estimated. It modified the profit rate from 8% to 4% on the undisclosed sales.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with notice and an opportunity to be heard before rectifying the order to dismiss the appeal, which increased the assessee's liability. Therefore, the rectification order was set aside.
The Tribunal, in its original order, had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This corrigendum confirms that the Revenue's appeal was indeed dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex parte without adjudicating on merits and without proper proof of service of notices. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, restoring the appeals for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified, following its own previous decisions in similar cases. The revenue failed to demonstrate that the money was not paid or was routed back to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity of being heard before the AO. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine the characterization of the interest income, considering whether the FDs were essential for obtaining contracts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex parte without adjudicating on merits and without proper proof of service of notices. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, restoring the appeals for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to produce directors of share subscribing companies and relevant documents to prove the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals) due to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263. The matter was remitted back to the Principal CIT for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper notice to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal agreed that the disallowance under Section 43B is contingent on the service tax being routed through the Profit & Loss Account. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of this fact and to grant appropriate relief.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(Appeals) as required by principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal agreed that the disallowance under Section 43B is contingent on the service tax being routed through the Profit & Loss Account. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of this fact and to grant appropriate relief.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.