Loading ITAT cases…
240 orders · Page 3 of 5
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), subject to a deposit to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to decide the applications afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the filed replies.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee disputed the consideration value and requested such a referral. The AO's failure to do so violated Section 50C(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the assessment and restored the file to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment, subject to a deposit by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the need for substantial justice and liberal interpretation of sufficient cause. It also restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, directing the AO to provide a hearing and the assessee to participate.
The tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the appeal's subject matter was resolved. Based on this, the tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to decide the applications afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the filed replies.
The Tribunal held that while the company was struck off from the Registrar of Companies, it shall be deemed to continue to exist for the purpose of discharging its liabilities. Therefore, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer against the assessee cannot be termed as illegal or framed against a non-est entity. The Tribunal noted that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), in an appeal filed by the Income Tax department for restoration of the company, restored the company to enable the department to recover its dues, despite the assessee's opposition. The Tribunal found the assessee's conduct in opposing the restoration and persisting with the present petition as an abuse of process to obstruct assessment proceedings. Consequently, Ground No. 1 of the assessee was dismissed. Regarding Ground No. 2, since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) in the first appeal, and the Tribunal held that assessment can be framed on struck-off companies, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after allowing the assessee to make compliance and file necessary documents, with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the issue was already resolved by a prior ITAT order. Based on this, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the present appeal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC without issuing a notice violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the CPC/Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after issuing a notice.
The Tribunal noted the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Since the assessee did not appear and no reasonable cause was provided for the delay, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Since the assessee did not appear and no reasonable cause was provided for the delay, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that purchases were not entirely bogus but lacked proper documentation. While upholding that a profit element was embedded, it reduced the estimated profit rate from 12.5% to 6.5% on the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be not a speaking order and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the circumstances for cash payments. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not contributed any amount towards the purchase consideration and the entire amount was paid by her husband, the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) could not be sustained in the hands of the assessee. The evidence showed the husband was the sole contributor.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), subject to a deposit to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. The assessee will be given an opportunity to make submissions, and Rule 46A of the IT Rules will be followed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. The assessee will be given an opportunity to make submissions, and Rule 46A of the IT Rules will be followed.
The Tribunal found that while the rejection of books of account was justified due to the admitted omission of invoices, the Assessing Officer did not provide adequate justification for applying the 8% net profit rate. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not fully reconcile the figures related to investments and loans/advances with bank statements. The AO's addition of notional interest was also questioned as it was applied only for the current year without reassessment proceedings for prior years.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the rate of commission based on cited precedents and recompute the income after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not grant adequate opportunity of being heard and that enhancement of income on account of donations was made without proper notice. The Tribunal also noted that the explanation for cash deposits was not considered.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the rate of commission based on cited precedents and recompute the income after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. The assessee will be given an opportunity to make submissions, and Rule 46A of the IT Rules will be followed.
The Tribunal held that while prima facie adjustments can be made for deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A if the return is filed beyond the due date, an intimation to the assessee is necessary before such adjustments. The Tribunal found that this procedural requirement might not have been met.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Considering the assessee's medical condition and lack of proper opportunity before the lower authorities, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee could not reconcile the commodity profit with the income from other sources. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the quantum addition and consequential penalty proceedings to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that additions can only be made if they are the subject matter of the reasons recorded for reopening. If the original reason for reopening does not lead to an addition, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions on other unrelated issues.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the director's medical condition and the need for substantial justice. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, subject to a deposit to the PMNRF. The matter was then remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the director's medical condition and the need for substantial justice. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the quantum addition and consequential penalty proceedings to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee filed its return within the extended due date due to COVID-19. Therefore, levying interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was erroneous. The Tribunal directed the CPC to consider the MAT credit for calculating interest liability.
The Tribunal held that additional evidence submitted by the assessee ought to have been admitted and that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the AO's estimation of 50% profit to be excessive. It directed the AO to apply a net profit rate of 20% on gross receipts, considering the nature of consultancy and past assessment years.
The Tribunal held that additions can only be made if they are the subject matter of the reasons recorded for reopening. If the original reason for reopening does not lead to an addition, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions on other unrelated issues.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, with the assessee not participating and not all grounds being decided on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to be heard and was directed to cooperate in the set-aside proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to him for disposal on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to make further submissions, and Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 was to be followed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee raised several legal issues before it that were not raised in the first appellate proceedings. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on these legal issues.
The Tribunal held that since the diagnostic expenses included material purchases and salary to diagnostic staff, and considering it as a technical fee, TDS should have been deducted under Section 194C at 2%.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technicality without considering the merits. The Tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 148 was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), which was required after the amendment effective from 01.04.2021. Therefore, the entire assessment proceeding was quashed.
The Tribunal held that procedural timelines for beneficial legislation are directory, not mandatory. Delay in filing the application form cannot be a ground to deny a legal benefit to an assessee entitled under the law.
The Tribunal held that the professional fees were revenue in nature and allowable as a deduction. It also found that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 for unsecured loans by providing sufficient documentary evidence, including repayment, and relied on High Court judgments where similar appeals by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in disbelieving the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits, which was supported by documentary evidence like the cash book and audited accounts. The addition was deleted as the revenue did not provide any contrary material.
The Tribunal noted that the issue required reconciliation of accounts which was not done properly before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment after the assessee provides the reconciliation.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. As there was no objection from the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on April 11, 2022, for AY 2015-16 was time-barred. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings were quashed.