Loading ITAT cases…
135 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal observed that Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allows for unabsorbed depreciation to be carried forward. Despite the claim being made late, the AO is duty-bound to consider such claims. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not clearly ascertain if there was any unabsorbed depreciation from previous years.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds of non-compliance without examining the merits. The Tribunal found this unjustified and decided to provide the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the appeal with a considerable delay of 149 days and failed to file any application for condonation of delay or appear before the Tribunal. Given the lack of procedural compliance and representation, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the proviso to Section 2(15) is triggered only when the residual limb of charitable purpose is involved. It was not clearly established whether the assessee was exclusively involved in medical relief or other activities falling under the residual object. The Tribunal found it difficult to segregate revenue-generating activities from charitable purposes. The disallowance of expenses also warranted a second look.
The Tribunal noted that the proviso to Section 2(15) is triggered only when the residual limb of charitable purpose is involved. It was not clearly established whether the assessee was exclusively involved in medical relief or other activities falling under the residual object. The Tribunal found it difficult to segregate revenue-generating activities from charitable purposes. The disallowance of expenses also warranted a second look.
The Tribunal noted that the proviso to Section 2(15) is triggered only when the residual limb of charitable purpose is involved. It was not clearly established whether the assessee was exclusively involved in medical relief or other activities falling under the residual object. The Tribunal found it difficult to segregate revenue-generating activities from charitable purposes. The disallowance of expenses also warranted a second look.
The Tribunal upheld the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, finding the search operation was based on credible information and substantial unaccounted income was discovered. The addition of Rs. 54,000/- as a gift was also confirmed due to lack of proof.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Due to the assessee's absence, the appeals were decided based on available records and the assistance of the Revenue's representative.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. It dismissed appeals against the legality of search proceedings, confirmation of additions for household expenses, inclusion of income from alias names, unexplained expenditure, unexplained gifts, unexplained bank deposits, and unexplained opening capital balance. However, the Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 80,000/- (reduced to Rs. 40,000/- by CIT(A)) as income from business for AY 2004-05, finding no proof of the business by the AO. Consequently, ITA Nos.212 to 215/Pat/2023 were dismissed, and ITA No.216/Pat/2023 was partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the process under Section 143(1) is machine-driven and not expected to apply its mind beyond a point. However, it is expected that a First Appellate Authority will take a holistic view and ensure an assessee is not penalized for an inadvertent oversight. In this case, the Tribunal found that this is precisely what had happened. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for appraising the correct figures and allowing relief to the assessee as would be due to him within the law. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive grounds of appeal but directed the Ld. CIT(A) to re-examine the matter.
The Tribunal upheld the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, finding the search operation was based on credible information and substantial unaccounted income was discovered. The addition of Rs. 54,000/- as a gift was also confirmed due to lack of proof.
The Tribunal upheld the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, finding the search operation was based on credible information and substantial unaccounted income was discovered. The addition of Rs. 54,000/- as a gift was also confirmed due to lack of proof.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. The Tribunal considered the submissions and decided that remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication would serve substantive justice, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2012-13 and admitted both appeals for adjudication. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not adequately pursue the matters before the CIT(A) and decided to remand the cases back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the Supreme Court has deleted the very addition that formed the basis for the penalty, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) must also be deleted. The mismatch in the assessee's status was considered immaterial in light of the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue did not oppose the withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if the scheme was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2012-13 and admitted both appeals for adjudication. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not adequately pursue the matters before the CIT(A) and decided to remand the cases back for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the dispute under the DTVSV scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to revive it if unsuccessful under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was passed without making necessary inquiries or verification regarding the 'retention money'. This lack of application of mind by the AO made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, justifying the PCIT's revisionary powers.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the pandemic. However, due to the assessee's persistent non-appearance and lack of evidence to counter the lower authorities' findings, the tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) held the entire assessment proceedings to be null and void, agreeing that the AO had traveled beyond jurisdiction by not invoking Section 153C. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate all issues on merit and that the matter required further examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, the appeal itself was dismissed with liberty to the assessee to revive it if unsuccessful under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to decide on merits after hearing the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and did not consider the assessee's submissions regarding the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and the requirement for a proper hearing.
The ITAT found that the assessee did not get adequate opportunities to present its case before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted that under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee is required to withdraw their appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of adequate representation and compliance before the lower authorities. Consequently, both matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not successful.
The tribunal noted that under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee is required to withdraw their appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of adequate representation and compliance before the lower authorities. Consequently, both matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to lack of proper representation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to him for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged that donations might be received in cash and bank and reflected in separate books. However, verification was needed to ensure all receipts tallied. The Tribunal remanded the case to the AO for verifying the reflection of all donations in the receipt/payment account.
The Tribunal deemed it just to grant the assessee another opportunity to present the facts before the AO. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment for both assessment years, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the interest of justice, it was decided that the assessee deserved another chance to present facts. The matter was remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh assessment after providing an opportunity to be heard.