Loading ITAT cases…
380 orders · Page 5 of 8
The Tribunal found that the assessee's reconciliation showed no actual difference in purchases, with the discrepancy arising from the net purchase accounting. However, due to procedural issues like ex-parte orders and the Commissioner (Appeals) not considering evidence, the matters were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee had successfully discharged its onus by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transaction. The AO's reliance on uncompiled 'source of source' notices and a retracted statement was found to be misplaced.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C is applicable only to land or building or both, and not to leasehold rights, which are a distinct capital asset. Therefore, the addition made by the AO under Section 50C was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided. The issues were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the additions were based on conjecture and surmises without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that only net profit can be added in cases of unrecorded sales and that a retracted statement has no evidentiary value.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide any documentary evidence to support the claim that the assessee received the alleged amount from M/s Bhawani Enterprises. Therefore, the addition could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned and unstamped agreement has no legal validity and cannot be the basis for levying a penalty. The department failed to substantiate the transaction with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's bona fide belief that the payee was exempt from TDS and that scrap sales were outside TCS provisions constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Therefore, the penalties were not to be imposed.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in inconsistently treating depreciation in the assessee's case versus comparable companies. By excluding depreciation from the comparable companies' operating expenses while including it for the assessee, an anomalous comparison was made.
The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a survey under Section 131 is not on oath and lacks evidentiary value on its own. Since the assessee provided a satisfactory reconciliation with supporting documents, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment order were barred by limitation, as they were issued beyond the permissible time frame as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Additionally, the approval for reopening was obtained from an incorrect authority under Section 151.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and did not give findings on the issues raised. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the assessee's reasons were justifiable. On merits, the Tribunal found that the cash deposit addition was not supported by evidence, and the unexplained credit was satisfactorily explained by capital infusion and a loan from the assessee's wife.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It found that the assessee had a prima facie case for claiming exemptions and set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A). The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment, with directions to delete certain additions and grant claimed exemptions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, particularly those relating to the legality of the reopening. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back. The CIT(A) is directed to obtain a report from the DVO to determine the fair market value of the property.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s observation of no response from the assessee to be factually erroneous. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted substantial documentary evidence during remand proceedings which were not properly considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) are not applicable as the agreement to sell and substantial payments were made before the amendment's effective date. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Form No. 10 was filed before the completion of assessment proceedings. Following a coordinate bench decision and considering CBDT Circular No. 06/2020, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(2).
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation, following a Supreme Court concession. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer to consider the additional evidence (daily stock register) produced by the assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue by considering the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption.
The Tribunal held that as per the provisos to Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement to sell should be considered if substantial payment was made through banking channels before the agreement date. Since the agreement was for Rs. 1,23,51,430/- and advance payment was made, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was ex-parte and the AO/CIT(A) did not properly examine the assessee's claims. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases and restored the issue to the AO for fresh assessment. It also restored the TDS disallowance issue to the AO for verification and computation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles of substantial justice and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases and restored the issue to the AO for fresh assessment. It also restored the TDS disallowance issue to the AO for verification and computation.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether share capital and premium were received in an earlier year requires verification of facts and evidence, and thus cannot be considered a mistake apparent from the record under Section 154. However, the addition of Rs. 40,00,000 was upheld as it required detailed reasoning and evidence appreciation.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to recompute the income after considering the assessee's explanation and evidence regarding the double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the notices u/s 148 and 143(2) were issued by a non-jurisdictional AO, violating CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Consequently, the assessment is invalid. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s direction for an addition of 5% on sales consideration due to lack of basis.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the appeal for a fresh disposal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the application for condonation of delay and provide a proper opportunity for hearing, sending notices to the correct email address.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the appeal for a fresh disposal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the application for condonation of delay and provide a proper opportunity for hearing, sending notices to the correct email address.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully disclosed all facts and made a claim that was legally correct at the time of filing. Therefore, there was no underreporting of income, and the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposited was from cash sales duly recorded in the books of accounts and offered to tax. The AO did not point out any specific deficiency in the books or reject them. Therefore, the addition resulted in double taxation.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO, directing the AO to pass an order on merit after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. This was done in the interest of justice, acknowledging the assessee's failure to provide explanations.
The Tribunal held that a statement made during a survey cannot be solely relied upon for addition without corroborating material. It also found that evidence for unsecured loans was provided and that short TDS deduction does not warrant disallowance. Capital introductions were explained by withdrawals from a proprietary concern's bank account.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period as it was served on April 1, 2021, instead of March 31, 2021. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders without deciding the issues on merit.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of adopting the stamp valuation without receiving the DVO's report within the stipulated time was unsustainable. The sale consideration declared by the assessee should be taken as correct.
The Tribunal held that the mere non-initiation or incorrect initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer does not, by itself, render an assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the exact charge, thereby depriving the assessee of a proper response. Consequently, the penalty notice and the consequent penalty order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the NFAC was without jurisdiction and therefore null and void. It also held that the assessment framed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) after a return was filed in response to a Section 148 notice was bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse and should not lead to the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 10(23C). The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions which held that such technical breaches do not warrant denial of exemption, especially when the assessee substantially fulfills the conditions for exemption.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the unsecured loans and cash purchases, including loan confirmations, bank statements, and mill gate passes from farmers. The AO's additions were based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that all evidence was available before the AO and that the assessee consistently accounted for sales upon project completion. The addition of advances to net income was deemed unwarranted.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.