Loading ITAT cases…
161 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal accepted the independent valuer's report of Rs. 15,50,000, considering the land-locked nature of the property. The addition of Rs. 5,44,730 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 68 requiring 'source of source' verification was effective from AY 2013-14 and not applicable retrospectively to AY 2011-12. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, and the onus shifted to the AO to disprove it.
The Tribunal found that the appeal order was passed ex-parte without proper consideration of documents and grounds. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made without application of mind and without correlating any entries in the assessee's books. The lower authorities failed to prove the allegation of accommodation entries.
The Tribunal found that the addition was made on an assumption basis without sufficient evidence from the AO. It was also noted that the assessee did not submit evidence before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was due to a wrong mention of the clause in the application form, which led to the dismissal of the applications. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the applications on merit for regular registration.
The ITAT found merit in the assessee's ground that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and lacked proper adjudication. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the issue of property valuation should be remanded to the AO for determination with the assistance of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). Regarding bank deposits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient past savings and income to explain the deposits, directing the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claims for Section 80C deduction and professional tax paid. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant appropriate relief if admissible.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, upholding the addition of LTCG as bogus, citing a Calcutta High Court decision on penny stocks. Additions for interest and notional commission were also sustained due to lack of substantiation by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a technical error where the assessee mistakenly cited Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The application should be treated as one for regular registration and decided on its merits.
The Tribunal held that provisional registration and regular registration under Section 12A are distinct. Therefore, the matter was sent back to the CIT(Exemptions) for re-adjudication of the assessee's application for regular registration.
The Tribunal restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions and documents, providing adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the online appeal, considering the procedural aspect and the initial manual filing within time. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) orders were passed without proper adjudication. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, upholding the addition of LTCG as bogus, citing a Calcutta High Court decision on penny stocks. Additions for interest and notional commission were also sustained due to lack of substantiation by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was valid. It also decided that an addition under Section 50C(1) was warranted, but the quantum of addition needed to be determined.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in considering the Assessing Officer's order as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries and taken permissible views on the issues raised.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure tax is assessed on the right person, right income, and in the right assessment year, considering the new development.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) orders were passed without proper adjudication. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) as the donation was part of an organized fraud. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the claim with circumstantial evidence.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without dealing with the merits of the case and without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without dealing with the merits of the case and without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of passing the assessment order before the expiry of the limited time provided to the assessee for compliance constituted a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned assessment order was liable to be set aside.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without dealing with the merits of the case and without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders, remanding the case back to the AO. The assessee is granted an opportunity to present all relevant details and objections regarding the reopening of the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition as the assessee denied the transaction of purchase and all payments were made through banking channels. The AO failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the purchase.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal with liberty to the assessee to apply for recall if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme benefit does not materialize. The appeal was dismissed as the assessee had discharged its responsibilities and paid taxes.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee disputes the stamp duty value, the Assessing Officer must refer the matter to the DVO. Furthermore, Section 56(2)(vii) is not applicable to agricultural land situated more than 15 km from a municipality.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal also deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) on the grounds that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the death of her mother, and Section 273B provided relief.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed within the extended period granted by the Supreme Court due to COVID-19. Therefore, the delay should have been condoned, and the appeals should have been decided on merit.
The Tribunal held that the amount received was sale consideration for equity shares held by the assessee for more than a year and duly reflected in its audited financial statements. Therefore, Section 68 was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was established to be in the business of coal trading and had provided details of sales and purchases, the cash deposits during demonetisation were likely from business sales and not unexplained. The addition made by the AO was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed within the extended period granted by the Supreme Court due to COVID-19. Therefore, the delay should have been condoned, and the appeals should have been decided on merit.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing and that the CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the assessment record, including a remand report. Therefore, the issue was relegated to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition for deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) was not justified as the assessee company was not a shareholder in the lending company. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance of consultancy charges paid to outside doctors, finding the explanation to be genuine and supported by practice.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper adjudication. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner could not invoke Section 263 against an assessment order that was no longer in existence. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's inquiry to be flawed and the CIT(Appeals)'s dismissal for want of prosecution to be erroneous. It held that the commission expenses were incurred for business purposes and the assessee had provided basic details.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal, upholding the disallowances made by the lower authorities. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence or arguments to controvert the disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the applications should have been considered under the clause for regular registration. It directed the CIT(Exemption) to treat the applications as filed under the correct clause and consider them on merit for regular registration.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This was to allow the assessee to submit additional evidence regarding conversion charges paid for the property.
The Tribunal held that the applications should have been considered under the clause for regular registration. It directed the CIT(Exemption) to treat the applications as filed under the correct clause and consider them on merit for regular registration.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of an investee company is not determined by the magnitude of profit earned by an investor. The assessee's investment was considered part of a list of companies where investments were deemed bogus by the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal to be vague and unsubstantiated. Given the assessee's consistent non-compliance and lack of evidence at all stages, the Tribunal decided to adjudicate the matter ex parte.
The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's inquiry to be flawed and the CIT(Appeals)'s dismissal for want of prosecution to be erroneous. It held that the commission expenses were incurred for business purposes and the assessee had provided basic details.
The Tribunal held that the date of issuance of a notice is when it is sent for delivery, not when it is signed. Since the notice was sent after the due date, the assessment order is considered bad in law and non-est.
The Tribunal decided that grounds related to transfer pricing and section 80IA deduction were covered by earlier decisions in favour of the assessee. Other grounds were decided based on previous rulings, and the leave encashment issue was remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had not satisfied the conditions precedent for invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessee had provided all necessary details, and the PCIT's allegations of lack of enquiry by the AO were unsubstantiated.