Loading ITAT cases…
184 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to properly consider the remand report and rejoinder, and had simply followed a previous order that was set aside. The matter was again remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and lacked merit discussion. To ensure natural justice, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that deduction for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI cannot be claimed, even if deposited before the return filing date, following the Supreme Court ruling in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal observed that there was a duplication of appeals. Consequently, it decided to dismiss one of the appeals and adjourn the hearing of the other.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on a misunderstanding of the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme's applicability. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 20% gross profit to be unjustified as it lacked basis, comparative data, and ignored the assessee's books of account and past profit margins.
The Tribunal remanded the entire issue back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the assessee's claim for exemption based on the Supreme Court's judgment and to consider the validity of the assessment order in light of the missing Section 143(2) notice.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. If filed belatedly with all necessary details before the revenue authorities, the FTC claim should be allowed. The disallowance of FTC was set aside.
The assessee's authorized representative sought permission to withdraw the appeal during the hearing. The revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal held that since the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were quashed, the consequential assessment proceedings and additions made thereafter become infructuous. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not recording specific findings on the disputed issues. The order was set aside due to procedural irregularities and lack of proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order of the Pr. CIT was set aside, the assessment order based on it had no legal basis. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to the AO regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity for hearing and without passing a speaking order. The CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits, not dismiss them for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and not in accordance with the law. To ensure natural justice, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal found it necessary to remand the case back to the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to re-examine the issue after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed all required details before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the purchase agreement and subsequent events.
The Tribunal found it necessary to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the case afresh. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and provide necessary documents to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the incorrect carried forward loss figure and restored the matter to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the subcontracting profit, finding no evidence to support the AO's allegation of a bogus contractor. It also deleted the addition on share warrants, noting they were issued to existing shareholders and approved by SEBI. The issue of loss disallowance was remanded to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in the disputed additions was below the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable as the amount in question was not a cash credit received during the year. The lower authorities' observations were found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was non-est due to a procedural lapse where a pending assessment abated upon a search operation. Therefore, the consequential additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) acted under a mistaken belief. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in the disputed additions was below the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal held that advance tax, TDS, TCS, and MAT credit are forms of taxes already paid and are given set off after the tax is determined in an assessment. Therefore, the 'tax determined' should be considered before these credits. As the refund was less than 10% of the tax determined before credits, the assessee was not eligible for interest.
The Tribunal held that interest income from FDRs with non-cooperative banks, personal loans to members, and housing loans to staff are not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as they are not derived from the primary business of the cooperative society. The issue of overdue interest was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further examination.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding seized document AGH/1 (Issue 1), the Tribunal noted that the AO had only considered receipts and ignored expenditures. The CIT(A) had also observed this and obtained a remand report. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided detailed explanations and reconciled figures, including the inflow and outflow of cash from guest house and fishery businesses. The Tribunal held that seized documents must be read as a whole, and picking only receipts while ignoring expenditures is not justified. Consequently, the addition related to AGH/1 was partly deleted. For seized document AGH/2 (Issue 2), the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that sufficient cash was available for personal expenditures, and the nature of expenditure was personal and independent of AGH/1 figures. The addition of Rs. 6,56,386/- was ordered to be deleted. For seized document AGH/3 (Issue 3), the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the document pertained to 'Rani Towers', a business assessed in the name of his wife, Rani Banik, and the amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- was a security deposit that was refunded. The Tribunal noted that no income from Rani Towers was assessed in the assessee's hands and the document showed repayment. The addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding cash found (Issue 4), the Tribunal, in the context of IT(SS)A No.88/Kol/2023, ordered the deletion of Rs. 50,000/- out of Rs. 50,128/-, finding that the assessee had duly explained the entries. A minor difference of Rs. 8/- was ignored. This appeal was partly allowed. In the revenue's appeal (IT(SS)A No.92/Kol/2023), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the closing balance and cash in hand, reiterating that seized documents must be read in their entirety and the AO cannot selectively pick receipts. The revenue's appeal was dismissed. The application of Section 115BBE (Issue 5) on the addition of Rs. 6,56,386/- became infructuous as the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The AO is directed to consider the evidence and explanations provided by the assessee regarding the SBN deposits.
The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) order was not sustainable as it failed to decide the appeal on merit and did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6). The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was due to the tax effect of the disputed additions being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeal. Regarding seized document AGH/1, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered both receipts and expenditure and found that the assessee had provided detailed explanations. The Tribunal agreed that the AO selectively picked receipts and ignored expenditure, and that the cash in hand position was duly considered. The addition of Rs. 20,83,667/- for AY 2019-20 and Rs. 3,48,054/- for AY 2020-21, as per AGH/1, was not explicitly deleted but the benefit of cash in hand was given. For seized document AGH/2, the Tribunal held that the expenditure was personal and could be considered as application of income out of available funds, ordering deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,56,386/-. For seized document AGH/3, the Tribunal found that the amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- was a security deposit collected and refunded for Rani Towers, income from which was assessed in the name of the assessee's wife, and ordered deletion of the addition. The addition of Rs. 1,72,500/- (cash found) and Rs. 80,02,000/- (cash found by police) were not explicitly discussed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests they were either deleted or their source was explained. The application of Section 115BBE was rendered infructuous for the addition of Rs. 6,56,386/- due to its deletion. In IT(SS)A No.88/Kol/2023, an addition of Rs. 50,000/- out of Rs. 50,128/- was ordered to be deleted, making the appeal partly allowed. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the CIT(A)'s findings for AY 2019-20 were not challenged, and the benefit of cash in hand was duly given.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the hearing notices and was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding seized document AGH/1 (Issue 1), the Tribunal noted that the AO had only considered receipts and ignored expenditures. The CIT(A) had also observed this and obtained a remand report. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided detailed explanations and reconciled figures, including the inflow and outflow of cash from guest house and fishery businesses. The Tribunal held that seized documents must be read as a whole, and picking only receipts while ignoring expenditures is not justified. Consequently, the addition related to AGH/1 was partly deleted. For seized document AGH/2 (Issue 2), the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that sufficient cash was available for personal expenditures, and the nature of expenditure was personal and independent of AGH/1 figures. The addition of Rs. 6,56,386/- was ordered to be deleted. For seized document AGH/3 (Issue 3), the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the document pertained to 'Rani Towers', a business assessed in the name of his wife, Rani Banik, and the amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- was a security deposit that was refunded. The Tribunal noted that no income from Rani Towers was assessed in the assessee's hands and the document showed repayment. The addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding cash found (Issue 4), the Tribunal, in the context of IT(SS)A No.88/Kol/2023, ordered the deletion of Rs. 50,000/- out of Rs. 50,128/-, finding that the assessee had duly explained the entries. A minor difference of Rs. 8/- was ignored. This appeal was partly allowed. In the revenue's appeal (IT(SS)A No.92/Kol/2023), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the closing balance and cash in hand, reiterating that seized documents must be read in their entirety and the AO cannot selectively pick receipts. The revenue's appeal was dismissed. The application of Section 115BBE (Issue 5) on the addition of Rs. 6,56,386/- became infructuous as the addition was deleted.