Loading ITAT cases…
369 orders · Page 5 of 8
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of the unexplained cash deposits to the assessee's income. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory documentary evidence for the source of the funds, and the contradictory statements further weakened his claim.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid as it did not conform to the prescribed CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid notice was also deemed invalid, rendering the subsequent revisionary proceedings under Section 263 invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to the AO and the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the lower authorities. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant an opportunity to the assessee to present the evidence.
The ITAT, following the Kolkata High Court's decision, held that the notice under Section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional AO was valid. It upheld the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the allegedly unsigned notice. On the merits of the addition under Section 68, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment, noting that the CIT(A) had presumed the AO's order was ex-parte despite the assessee having filed details, and directed the AO to consider Section 292BB.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. It directed the Ld. CIT(A) to consider Form 10B and pass a fresh order, implying that technical irregularities like delayed filing of Form 10B and incorrect reporting of income can be cured, especially when negligence by an accountant is a factor, as referenced in a similar case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of not being the account holder was prima facie correct based on the bank statement. However, the CIT(A) did not thoroughly investigate the genuineness of the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal condoned the 178-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the use of an incorrect email ID in Form No. 35 which led to the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of ₹50,000/- to Legal Aid Services.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application and disposed of the appeal. It noted that the assessee failed to make any submissions or identify errors in the appellate order. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai, and dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal, noting the in limine rejection and the assessee's submission of provisional approval (Form 10AC) and undertaking to furnish documents, restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing to place all relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that excise duty refund, VAT remission, GST refund, and insurance claims are derived from the industrial undertaking and are eligible for deduction under Section 80IE, following previous ITAT decisions and High Court rulings.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Addl./JCIT(A) dismissing the assessee's appeal. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence to substantiate expenses before any authority.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found sufficient cause for the 100-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the order of the CIT(A), and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to both the assessee and the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without examining its merits or providing the assessee sufficient opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Citing various precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the CIT(A)'s duty to pass a speaking order with reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal to ITAT, deeming the reason bona fide. It restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard to present documents and make submissions.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection. It noted that the Revenue had not raised any ground challenging the CIT(A)'s finding that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid. As this jurisdictional finding had become final, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross-Objection as not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal had been listed for hearing on multiple occasions and the defects were not cured. The adjournment application was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeals were filed with a significant delay, which was condoned. Regarding the disallowance of 20% of other allowances, the Tribunal found no basis for the disallowance and deleted it. Since the facts and issues for AY 2013-14 were similar, the same finding was applied.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148A(b) and the subsequent notice under Section 148 were issued beyond the prescribed time limits as per the SOP. Additionally, the alleged escaped income of Rs. 14,89,425/- was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold required for reassessment notices under the new regime. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the consequential assessment order were deemed unsustainable and bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the audit report (Form 10BB) was available with the Assessing Officer when the return was processed, categorizing the delay as a technical breach. Following precedents, the Tribunal held that such technical glitches cannot lead to denial of exemption u/s.11 & 12, especially in an intimation u/s.143(1). Consequently, the intimation issued u/s.143(1) was quashed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that denying the benefit of Sections 11 & 12 solely on the ground of non-availability of new registration details, when the application was filed within the extended time limit, is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merit.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back. It directed the CIT(A) to consider the evidence filed during the appeal and provide an opportunity for a hearing to both the assessee and the AO.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed all five appeals filed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Addl./JCIT(A) as there were no submissions or representations from the assessee to warrant disturbing those findings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed all five appeals filed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Addl./JCIT(A) as there were no submissions or representations from the assessee to warrant disturbing those findings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed all five appeals filed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Addl./JCIT(A) as there were no submissions or representations from the assessee to warrant disturbing those findings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed all five appeals filed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Addl./JCIT(A) as there were no submissions or representations from the assessee to warrant disturbing those findings.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeals were filed with a significant delay, which was condoned. Regarding the disallowance of 20% of other allowances, the Tribunal found no basis for the disallowance and deleted it. Since the facts and issues for AY 2013-14 were similar, the same finding was applied.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity by restoring the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. However, noting the assessee's non-cooperation, a cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed, payable within sixty days to Legal Aid Services, failing which the CIT(A)'s order would stand confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 80AC, making filing of return mandatory for Section 80P deduction, are effective from April 1, 2018, and thus do not apply to Assessment Year 2017-2018. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P. The case was restored to the AO for re-adjudication and recomputation in accordance with law.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed all five appeals filed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Addl./JCIT(A) as there were no submissions or representations from the assessee to warrant disturbing those findings.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to substantiate claims and produce evidence before lower authorities. In the interest of justice, it granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence before the Assessing Officer (AO), restoring the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity of hearing. A cost of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation during appellate proceedings, with the condition that non-payment would lead to the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the AO, restoring the issues for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the AO by restoring the issues to the CIT(A) for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is not a dealer, the diamonds were not stock-in-trade, and the expenditure was not claimed, there was no basis for treating the purchase as bogus. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 336 days, admitting the appeal. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard by the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with a cost imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal determined that the assessee is a bona fide resident of Sikkim, settled before April 1, 1975, and thus entitled to income exemption under Section 10(26AAA), based on the Supreme Court's decision in Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim vs. Union of India. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to treat the assessee's income as exempt.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not comply with notices from the CIT(A) and failed to submit relevant documents to the AO. However, considering the explanation for non-appearance and delay due to a partner's death, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim before the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging that the assessee failed to submit evidence, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity by restoring the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is heard.
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not justify the 25% addition and failed to follow the procedure for DVO valuation under Section 56(2)(x) as per High Court ruling. Despite the assessee's non-appearance before lower authorities, the case is remanded to the AO for readjudication with proper opportunity, conditional on the assessee paying Rs.25,000/- costs to Legal Aid Services within 60 days.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the specific issue regarding the issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is provided an adequate opportunity of being heard to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding the reasons plausible and unopposed by the revenue. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity for the assessee, imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee for past non-cooperation.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation during appellate proceedings, with the condition that non-payment within sixty days would confirm the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal agreed that interest on loans for assets not yet put to use should be capitalized. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow Rs. 20,00,000/- of interest on cash credit for working capital as a revenue expenditure. It further directed the AO to quantify and allow depreciation on the capitalized interest for the subsequent Assessment Year 2017-18.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) had adjudicated on issues not part of the subject matter of the AO's order and had not adjudicated on the grounds presented by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's new claim of having paid, not received, the amount from Divya Drishti Merchants P Ltd., which was not raised before lower authorities. Considering the lack of full examination of facts by the AO and CIT(A), the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is instructed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee, allow submission of evidence, and re-decide the appeal according to law and Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, restoring the issues to the file of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to file relevant documents during appellate proceedings and had not cooperated. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the AO. The AO was directed to adjudicate the issues afresh after providing a fair hearing and examine directors of companies from whom money was received.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide a reason for the delay to the Ld. CIT(A) and did not file a condonation petition, instead relying on a subsequent Supreme Court order to cover the delay. Finding no grounds to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the specific issue regarding the issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is provided an adequate opportunity of being heard to substantiate its claim.