Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 1 of 2
The ITAT Delhi Benches held that they do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide these appeals and cross-objections. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order, as per Supreme Court decisions.
The ITAT Delhi Benches held that they do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide these appeals and cross-objections. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order, as per Supreme Court decisions.
The ITAT Delhi Benches held that they do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide these appeals and cross-objections. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order, as per Supreme Court decisions.
The ITAT Delhi Benches held that they do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide these appeals and cross-objections. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order, as per Supreme Court decisions.
The ITAT Delhi Benches held that they do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide these appeals and cross-objections. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order, as per Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 40A(3) was unsustainable as it was made on an estimated basis without identifying specific instances of violation. The Tribunal noted that disallowances under this section require identification of actual payments, not presumptions.
The Tribunal observed that the NFAC's order was ex-parte. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal deemed it fit to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the NFAC.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) rejected the applications without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without considering the details filed. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) rejected the applications without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without considering the details filed. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing that the assessee be given another opportunity to present their case and produce evidence. The Tribunal cautioned the assessee to comply with the AO's directions.
The Tribunal held that an order passed by the PCIT under section 119 of the Income Tax Act is not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee neither appeared during the hearing nor filed any application for condonation of delay, as the appeal was beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 253(3) of the IT Act. Concluding that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed it for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) invoked Section 36(1)(iii) without providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the disallowance is restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal noted non-compliance by the assessee but, considering the peculiar facts and the assessee's prayer, decided to grant one more opportunity. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to present their case and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) invoked Section 36(1)(iii) without providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the disallowance is restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of the appeal, citing their decision to opt for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2024 and the issuance of a certificate in Form No. 2. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. As a measure of caution, the Tribunal clarified that the assessee would be permitted to approach the ITAT for the restoration of the appeal if it is subsequently found that the issue in dispute in the present appeal is not settled under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance at both AO and NFAC levels but found reasonable cause for the same, considering the assessee's circumstances of working abroad and caring for parents. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present their case and evidence, with a warning that future non-compliance would result in an ex-parte order based on available records.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) invoked Section 36(1)(iii) without providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the disallowance is restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had non-compliance before the NFAC and AO. However, considering the prayer of the assessee's representative and the facts, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, consigning it to record. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to approach it again if the DTVSV application is not finally accepted by the Department.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether investments yielded taxable or exempt income needs re-examination by the AO. It also restored the matter of amortization of expenses and depreciation to the AO for fresh consideration, while quashing the disallowance for NACH expenses.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous. This decision was based on the assessee's submission that they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2024 (VSVS) and had received a certificate in Form-4 on 13th January, 2025, signifying full and final settlement of tax arrears. The Revenue's representative did not object to this submission. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous. As a measure of abundant caution, the Tribunal clarified that the Revenue would be at liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if it is later found that the dispute in the present appeal was not settled under the VSVS. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for the cash sales, particularly the unprecedented surge in October 2016 (80% of total sales) compared to previous periods (peak of 34%), was not convincing. The AO had rightly observed that while businesses don't strictly follow mathematical calculations, they do have trends. The assessee's own past sales pattern showed peak sales during the festive season, but the variation in cash sales percentage in October 2016 was exceptionally high. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Pooja Ajmani v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 20(4), New Delhi, which stated that arrangements to avoid taxation must be real and genuine, not a sham. The Tribunal opined that the documents submitted by the assessee served as a smokescreen. The Tribunal estimated the peak percentage of cash sale to total sale for the year under consideration at 29.40% (instead of 80.02% shown by the assessee) based on the previous year's peak of 27.40% plus 2%. This led to a shortfall in cash sales of Rs. 1,14,57,649/-. The addition made by the AO was upheld.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, with no objection from the Ld. D.R. The appeal was dismissed for statistical purposes, granting the assessee liberty to approach the Tribunal again if their Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application is not finally accepted by the Department.
The Tribunal decided that the provision for income tax added back by the AO was a double addition as it was already included in the business profit. The disallowance for employee's PF contribution was upheld due to late deposit. The disallowance for leave encashment was also upheld as it was not claimed in the revised return.
The Tribunal decided that the provision for income tax added back by the AO constituted a double addition as it was already part of the business profit. Regarding the employee's share of provident fund, the Tribunal considered the assessee's submission about delayed deposit and registration. For Section 14A, the Tribunal noted the absence of exempt income and the assessee's reliance on specific case laws.
The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the appellate order were passed ex-parte, and the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- as provision for income tax was a double addition as it was already included in the business profit. Regarding the disallowance of employees' share of PF, the Tribunal noted that the payment was made after registration with the PF Commissioner and remanded the issue for fresh consideration. The issue of leave encashment was also remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the Ld. CIT(E) and that the rejection orders were passed ex-parte. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording the assessee a proper opportunity.
Both the Revenue and the assessee's representatives agreed that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appeal in limine without considering its merits. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if the actual tax effect is later found to exceed the CBDT's monetary limit.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and in the interest of substantial justice, restored the appeals to the NFAC. The NFAC was directed to give the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and then decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessments and remand the cases. It noted that an amendment to Section 251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, effective from October 1, 2024, explicitly grants the CIT(A) the power to set aside assessment orders under Section 144 and remand cases for fresh assessment. Since the CIT(A)'s orders were passed after this effective date, they were found to be in line with the amended provisions.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessments and remand the cases. It noted that an amendment to Section 251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, effective from October 1, 2024, explicitly grants the CIT(A) the power to set aside assessment orders under Section 144 and remand cases for fresh assessment. Since the CIT(A)'s orders were passed after this effective date, they were found to be in line with the amended provisions.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and in the interest of substantial justice, restored the appeals to the NFAC. The NFAC was directed to give the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and then decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessments and remand the cases. It noted that an amendment to Section 251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, effective from October 1, 2024, explicitly grants the CIT(A) the power to set aside assessment orders under Section 144 and remand cases for fresh assessment. Since the CIT(A)'s orders were passed after this effective date, they were found to be in line with the amended provisions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not properly represented before the lower authorities due to issues with notice service. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the Ld. CIT(E) and that the rejection orders were passed ex-parte. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording the assessee a proper opportunity.
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in submissions made to the AO and the NFAC. It restored the file to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to reconcile figures and produce evidence for the impugned transactions, emphasizing full compliance from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also noted the issue of ex-parte assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the RDA's activities fall under the object of general public utility, which is a charitable purpose. The proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable as the RDA does not carry out activities with a profit motive, and its predominant object is the welfare of the people.
The Tribunal held that the RDA's activities fall under the object of general public utility, which is a charitable purpose. The proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable as the RDA does not carry out activities with a profit motive, and its predominant object is the welfare of the people.
The Tribunal held that the RDA's activities fall under the object of general public utility, which is a charitable purpose. The proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable as the RDA does not carry out activities with a profit motive, and its predominant object is the welfare of the people.
The Tribunal held that the RDA's activities fall under the object of general public utility, which is a charitable purpose. The proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable as the RDA does not carry out activities with a profit motive, and its predominant object is the welfare of the people.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without proper inquiry into the assessee's claim of not being aware of the order. The Tribunal noted the circumstances of the assessee, including reliance on counsel and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The assessee's Authorized Representative submitted an application to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated that it filed evidences related to its activities, which appeared to have escaped the CIT(Exemption)'s attention. To serve the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without passing a speaking order on merits, as mandated by section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a de novo decision on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain its case before the CIT(E) to uphold the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the application was restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 14A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not retrospective. Consequently, it does not apply to the assessment years in question. The Tribunal also restored certain issues raised by the assessee back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Regarding the issue of the assessment order being bad in law under Section 144, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to present any material to justify interference with the CIT(A)'s order. Specifically concerning the addition of Rs.42,00,000/-, the CIT(A) noted that M/s Ahuja Goods Carrier (P) Ltd. denied any transaction with the assessee, the assessee failed to furnish the PAN of the entity, and no reply was received to a notice under Section 133(6). The CIT(A) also found a mismatch in signatures and concluded that the assessee failed to satisfy the primary conditions of establishing the existence of parties, genuineness of the transaction, and their creditworthiness. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee failed to establish with cogent evidence that it had cash-in-hand of Rs.42,00,000/- as on 8.11.2016. The Tribunal also addressed the argument that the AO did not reject the books of account before making additions under Section 68, stating that Section 68 can be applied if the assessee cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for sums credited in its books. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it. The appeal was dismissed.