Loading ITAT cases…
149 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not properly complied with the notices from the AO and CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, ensuring the assessee gets a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay due to not receiving communications from an erstwhile tax consultant. The CIT(A)'s rejection of the condonation was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay due to not receiving communications from an erstwhile tax consultant. The CIT(A)'s rejection of the condonation was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not cite comparable cases for the 25% profit addition. Considering the assessee is a trader and the audited books of account, the Tribunal allowed 10% of the alleged bogus purchases (Rs. 12,55,270) as extra profit, deleting the rest of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay due to not receiving communications from an erstwhile tax consultant. The CIT(A)'s rejection of the condonation was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment order did not provide specifics about the bogus loss, the entities involved in layering funds, or how the loss was adjusted. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as the assessment order was sketchy and lacked proper factual support for the addition. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under section 80P while processing the return under section 143(1) was not permissible for the assessment year in question, as the power to do so was conferred only from April 1, 2021. Such disallowance could only be made during a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3).
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay and condoned it. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the income declared under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of cooperation and granted one more opportunity. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal filed by the assessee had become infructuous due to the agreement on the appeal effect order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order contradictory and lacking in proper adjudication. It set aside the order and remanded the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, directing that the valuation report and cost of acquisition be considered after giving opportunities to both parties.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had raised legal issues regarding the reopening proceedings that were not properly addressed before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the additions deleted by the CIT(A) were either attributable to the assessee's mother, represented double additions, or were supported by detailed findings and reasoning. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletions and restrictions.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order in the interest of justice. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, with directions for the assessee to file all relevant details and be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of cash deposits as being from sales proceeds, which were duly accounted for in the books of account. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was not sustainable.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition as the Assessing Officer failed to provide independent evidence to prove the supplier was a shell company, and the assessee had provided supporting documents for the purchases.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition as the Assessing Officer failed to provide independent evidence to prove the supplier was a shell company, and the assessee had provided supporting documents for the purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to corroborate the sales made to M/s Shri Mahalaxmi Steels. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision on similar facts, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid as it did not conform to the mandatory format prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, all subsequent assessment proceedings were deemed void ab initio. The Tribunal also allowed other grounds related to the cost of land, cost of improvement, and rental income, while dismissing one ground as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that rejecting books of accounts without pointing out defects, solely because suppliers did not respond to Section 133(6) notices, is bad in law. The assessee had provided purchase invoices and other documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The non-compliance with summons by directors of share subscribers did not automatically invalidate the explanation provided by the assessee.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition as the Assessing Officer failed to provide independent evidence to prove the supplier was a shell company, and the assessee had provided supporting documents for the purchases.
The Tribunal held that the explanation for not filing the return was bona fide and reasonable, as the estate could not operate without the probate, which was delayed due to the COVID-19 period. Considering Section 270A(6) and the income being reflected in Form 26AS, the penalty for under-reporting income was not sustainable. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under section 234E for periods before June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the enabling provision (section 200A(1)(c)) was introduced later. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions from Madras, Karnataka, and Kerala, and its own coordinate benches.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under section 234E for periods before June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the enabling provision (section 200A(1)(c)) was introduced later. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions from Madras, Karnataka, and Kerala, and its own coordinate benches.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the deletion of the addition was based on a remand report from the Assessing Officer himself, which found the assessee's claim to be in order. Therefore, no interference was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under section 234E for periods before June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the enabling provision (section 200A(1)(c)) was introduced later. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions from Madras, Karnataka, and Kerala, and its own coordinate benches.
The Tribunal found that while Section 14A and Rule 8D were applicable, the AO's computation was incorrect as it included investments not yielding exempt income. Following the Calcutta High Court's decision in REI Agro Ltd., the matter was remanded for recomputation.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. It noted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had already set aside the assessment order. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT no longer survived. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal before the ITAT becomes infructuous and is liable to be withdrawn or dismissed when the underlying assessment order, which is the subject of the appeal, has been quashed by a higher judicial authority. The operative direction was to accept the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a cooperative society, had obtained its statutory audit report later and the CIT(A) ought to have considered the additional evidence. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a reasonable cause. It was held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte without proper adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, ensuring the assessee gets a fair opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, remanding the issue of interest on loans to the AO for verification and allowing prior period expenses for statistical purposes. The Revenue's cross-objections were also partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed by the NFAC on March 8, 2022, which was prior to the effective date of March 29, 2022, when the NFAC was empowered to pass such orders. Therefore, the assessment orders were without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without allowing the AO to examine the directors of the creditor companies, especially when the AO could not trace these companies. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed by the NFAC on March 8, 2022, which was prior to the effective date of March 29, 2022, when the NFAC was empowered to pass such orders. Therefore, the assessment orders were without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 154 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue due to bonafide reasons. The sole issue before the Tribunal was the deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,19,54,500/- made by the AO under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The AO had invoked this section on the grounds that the assessee purchased shares of RS Builder & Developer Pvt. Ltd. at a nominal price with the intention of acquiring a property held by the company, which had no business activity. The AO calculated the difference between the stamp duty valuation of the property and the proportionate shareholding valuation. The Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal, considering the assessee's contentions, the AO's remand report, and the assessee's rejoinder. The provided text does not detail the specific reasoning of the CIT(A) or the Tribunal's findings on the merits of the addition. The Tribunal's order is stated to be pronounced on 06.04.2026, and the operative directions are not explicitly stated in the excerpt.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2019-20 and 2020-21, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' orders dismissing the assessee's appeal, finding a lack of cogent evidence for salary income and commission. However, for AY 2021-22 and 2022-23, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's rice trading business, holding that Section 69A is not applicable to income offered under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD, thus directing the deletion of additions.
The Tribunal noted that the AO might not have examined all entries and the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the difference between bank credits and turnover. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for a de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on technical grounds without considering the merits and without providing a proper opportunity of hearing was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2019-20 and 2020-21, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' orders dismissing the assessee's appeal, finding a lack of cogent evidence for salary income and commission. However, for AY 2021-22 and 2022-23, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's rice trading business, holding that Section 69A is not applicable to income offered under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD, thus directing the deletion of additions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2019-20 and 2020-21, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' orders dismissing the assessee's appeal, finding a lack of cogent evidence for salary income and commission. However, for AY 2021-22 and 2022-23, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's rice trading business, holding that Section 69A is not applicable to income offered under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD, thus directing the deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. However, it found that the additions made by the AO, particularly concerning sale of investments, were not fully substantiated. Following precedent, the Tribunal directed that only a net profit element on the sale consideration should be taxed.
The Tribunal followed previous decisions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's cross-objection by setting aside the CIT(A)'s direction to estimate profit, finding no basis for it.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 62 days, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's inability to file on time. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2019-20 and 2020-21, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' orders dismissing the assessee's appeal, finding a lack of cogent evidence for salary income and commission. However, for AY 2021-22 and 2022-23, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's rice trading business, holding that Section 69A is not applicable to income offered under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD, thus directing the deletion of additions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the assessee claimed to have new evidence (consignment notes) and to ensure fair play, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo reassessment.
The Tribunal noted that some grounds were not pressed. Regarding the main issue of bogus expenditure, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's sub-contractor, proprietor of M/s. Jagannath Enterprise, could not appear earlier due to medical reasons. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment.