Loading ITAT cases…
220 orders · Page 5 of 5
The ITAT found that the Ld. CIT(A) had not adequately considered the assessee's submissions, particularly the claim that some cash deposits belonged to his wife and that other amounts had genuine explanations. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to file additional documents under Rule 46A for consideration and a remand report.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding the assessee deserved a chance to establish their case. It remanded all three appeals, including the penalty issues, back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
During the hearing, the assessee's counsel submitted a letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Bench accepted this request and consequently dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the orders of both the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). The matter is restored to the AO with a direction to verify the transactions based on the documents submitted by the assessee and pass a fresh order without being prejudiced by the current order.
The tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020' scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to revive the appeals if she is unsuccessful in the VSVS-24 scheme for any reason.
The Tribunal observed that the AO had not considered a valuation report requested by the assessee. Since a DVO report and other loan-related documents were now available, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering these new submissions.
The Tribunal found grave mistakes in the assessee's profit and loss account and income computation, specifically regarding the treatment of rental income, partners' remuneration, and business loss calculations. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, directing the AO to examine a revised income computation and claims for brought forward/carried forward losses after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), affirming that no additions could be made for a completed assessment under Section 153A without discovery of incriminating material during the search operation. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance u/s 40A(ia) cannot be sustained if the recipients of the income have duly offered the same in their returns and paid tax, citing Supreme Court and other judicial precedents. It was affirmed that Rule 31ACB of the IT Rules, 1962, is directory, and mere non-furnishing of Form 26A should not be a ground for disallowance when evidence of tax payment by recipients is provided. Consequently, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as requested by the assessee and not opposed by the revenue. However, the assessee was granted the liberty to revive the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application is unsuccessful for any reason.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's Section 263 order, distinguishing the assessee's reliance on a High Court judgment by noting that the Section 153D approval was granted by a JCIT, while the revision under Section 263 was exercised by the higher authority of Pr. CIT, who possesses the necessary jurisdiction. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Pr. CIT's order to direct the AO to recompute the income.
The tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020' scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to revive the appeals if she is unsuccessful in the VSVS-24 scheme for any reason.
During the hearing, the assessee's counsel submitted a letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Bench accepted this request and consequently dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.
During the hearing, the assessee's counsel submitted a letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Bench accepted this request and consequently dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii) was not applicable as the agreement to purchase the property was entered into before the section's effective date. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had incorrectly considered the cost of the flat.
The Tribunal found 'reasonable cause' for the delay, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, and condoned the 456-day delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, setting aside the earlier finding.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the Assessing Officer did not independently apply his mind to the information received. The reassessment was initiated based on a report from another authority and beyond the prescribed time limit, without proper examination of facts.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had accepted the possibility of cash sales but noted that complete details were not furnished. Following the principle that only the profit element should be added for unrecorded sales, and considering the assessee's disclosed net profit rate, the Tribunal estimated a 4% net profit rate on the remaining Rs.10,00,000/- in dispute. Consequently, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs.40,000/- only, providing further relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits, emphasizing the statutory obligation to pass a speaking order. Citing a High Court precedent, it remitted the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits, setting aside the ld. CIT(A)'s finding.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's declaration under IDS 2016, including the explanation for the source of deposits as commission income from routing third-party funds, was accepted by the Department prior to the Section 148 notice. The assessee had also provided details of the beneficiaries. The Tribunal found no justification for the addition, ruling that the impugned addition should be deleted.