Loading ITAT cases…
86 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute the net profit at 0.70% of the gross receipts, considering the average net profit rate of the preceding three assessment years.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was done after condoning the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. This was to ensure the assessee is provided with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were initiated without sufficient reason and with mechanical approval. Furthermore, on merits, the land sold was agricultural land beyond 10 KM from municipal limits, thus not a capital asset.
The Tribunal held that a demand under Section 156 can only be issued when a sum is actually payable. Since the assessment order determined the income and tax liability as Nil, raising a demand was contradictory and bad in law. The order of the NFAC allowing the refund was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee obtained registration under section 12A during the pendency of assessment proceedings, the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12 should be granted retrospectively as per CBDT Circular and judicial precedents. The AO's failure to apply the circular was a legal error.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment under Section 143(3) had already been completed and the issue of share capital was examined and accepted, the subsequent addition under Section 153A based on the same material amounted to a 'change of opinion', which is not permissible. The Tribunal also noted the absence of incriminating material found during the search to justify the reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the shared foreign exchange gain was a business expenditure incurred under a contractual obligation and should not be taxed as income. The Tribunal also restricted certain disallowances made by the lower authorities on other expenses.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not address the assessee's submissions or provide findings on the merits. To uphold natural justice, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's medical condition. Considering the violation of natural justice and the need for proper verification of evidence, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified as there was no material to suggest defects in the assessee's accounts, and the provisions of Section 145(3) were not invoked. The Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it or rebut it, as required by Rule 46A(3). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee an opportunity to present evidence for the expenses. The Tribunal also held that late payment fees for GST and TDS are compensatory and not disallowable.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute regarding the additions back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order. This was to be done after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5,57,00,000/- could not have been made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. It followed the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Lucknow, in the case of Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf (P.) Ltd. (supra), and found that the addition made under section 68 was unsustainable. Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the procedural aspect concerning the assessment under section 153A. It noted that while the assessee's case was a 'completed assessment' at the time of the search and the issuance of the section 153A notice, it became an 'unabated assessment' when the section 153A order was passed, as the original assessment had been set aside under section 263. Crucially, the Tribunal held that in cases falling under 'completed assessment' or 'unabated assessment' categories, no addition can be made in a section 153A assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search under section 132. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Pr.CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. and Dy.CIT vs. U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that no addition could be made under section 153A in this case for this reason as well. Therefore, the addition made in the assessment order under section 153A deserved to be deleted. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide complete documentation to the lower authorities. However, to ensure substantial justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to submit necessary documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval for issuing the notice under section 148 was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as required for assessments beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide complete documentation to the lower authorities. However, to ensure substantial justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to submit necessary documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found the grounds of appeal to be inconsistent and incongruent with the subject matter of the appeal (penalty). Therefore, the appeal was treated as defective.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide complete documentation to the lower authorities. However, to ensure substantial justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to submit necessary documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are consequential to the assessment of income. Since the quantum appeal was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, the penalty cannot survive independently.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute regarding the additions made in the assessment order back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a denovo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the issues in dispute to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issues in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a denovo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to explain the delay before the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the limitation issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the case to the AO, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present evidence for the cash withdrawals. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing documents like bank statements and lender confirmations. The Assessing Officer failed to bring contrary evidence to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it to be in accordance with the law and facts. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered the remand report and found no reason to interfere with the appellate order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing documents like bank statements and lender confirmations. The Assessing Officer failed to bring contrary evidence to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute regarding additions made in the assessment order back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a denovo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing documents like bank statements and lender confirmations. The Assessing Officer failed to bring contrary evidence to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it to be in accordance with the law and facts. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered the remand report and found no reason to interfere with the appellate order.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute regarding additions back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a denovo order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeals were not satisfactory and did not constitute sufficient cause. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeals were not satisfactory and did not constitute 'sufficient cause'. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeals were not satisfactory and did not constitute 'sufficient cause'. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.