Loading ITAT cases…
104 orders · Page 2 of 3
The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal observed that the original assessee was not represented adequately, and the assessment order was ex parte. Considering the principles of natural justice and the willingness of the legal heir to present documents, the Tribunal found merit in the submissions. Therefore, a final opportunity was granted to the assessee to substantiate the case.
The Tribunal observed that the original assessee was not represented adequately, and the assessment order was ex parte. Considering the principles of natural justice and the willingness of the legal heir to present documents, the Tribunal found merit in the submissions. Therefore, a final opportunity was granted to the assessee to substantiate the case.
The Tribunal observed that the original assessee was not represented adequately, and the assessment order was ex parte. Considering the principles of natural justice and the willingness of the legal heir to present documents, the Tribunal found merit in the submissions. Therefore, a final opportunity was granted to the assessee to substantiate the case.
The Tribunal observed that the original assessee was not represented adequately, and the assessment order was ex parte. Considering the principles of natural justice and the willingness of the legal heir to present documents, the Tribunal found merit in the submissions. Therefore, a final opportunity was granted to the assessee to substantiate the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee, including the serious medical condition of a co-director, and noting that the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte without delving into the merits of the case. The Tribunal decided to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee, including the serious medical condition of a co-director, and noting that the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte without delving into the merits of the case. The Tribunal decided to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the AO to delete the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) of the Act. It was held that the bonus payment was made within the time allowed under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and is deductible under Section 43B, given that the genuineness of the payments and the identity of the recipients were not disputed. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 40A(3) is a preventive measure against tax evasion and unaccounted money, which was not the case here.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee, including the serious medical condition of a co-director, and noting that the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte without delving into the merits of the case. The Tribunal decided to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeal, to which the revenue did not object. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to revive it if unsuccessful in the VSVS-24.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had gone into the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as prayed. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the VSVS-24 resolution was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remanded the case to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay. Although the assessee was absent before the CIT(A) and could not claim violation of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-adjudication in the interest of justice.
The CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order confirming an addition of Rs. 1,02,13,091/-. The assessee sought to set aside this order. While the Tribunal noted the assessee's non-representation before the CIT(A), they granted one more opportunity in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Although the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause supported by medical documents. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a decision on merits, emphasizing that the technical ground of the incorrect AY should not have led to a dismissal without considering the substance of the appeal.
The Tribunal found that while the AO was justified in rejecting the books of account, the estimated net profit rate of 2% was on the higher side. The Tribunal modified the net profit rate to 0.75% on the turnover.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, recognizing the sufficient cause presented by the assessee due to the director's illness and death. The Tribunal set aside both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders, remanding the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and obtaining a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte due to the lack of proper representation. Considering this, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not have proper representation at both the assessment and appellate stages. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to represent their case properly and also to the AO, if required.
The tribunal held that the appellant trust failed to place relevant documents before the CIT(E) to prove the bonafides of its charitable activities. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The assessee had made substantial withdrawals before demonetization and deposited a significant amount, and the entire amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- could not be considered unverifiable. Furthermore, the CIT(A) was also not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte.
The tribunal held that the appellant trust failed to place relevant documents before the CIT(E) to prove the bonafides of its charitable activities. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as Form No. 4 is awaited from the department and the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme application is not yet accepted. Considering the submissions, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and, in the interest of justice and fair play, found that the rejection of the application was made on account of non-compliance. The Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) cancelling the provisional registration and denying the final registration was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT (Exemption) for deciding the application afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal directed that the assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and shall file the required details, which shall be considered while deciding the application. The ratio of this decision is that where an application for registration is rejected due to non-compliance, and the assessee provides a reasonable explanation for the non-compliance and requests an opportunity to be heard, the matter should be remanded back to provide such an opportunity in the interest of justice.
The Bench accepted the request of the assessees and allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn on technical grounds.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT had not demonstrated any error or prejudice to the revenue in the original assessment order. The original assessment was a limited scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer had examined the details provided by the assessee. Since no error was found in the Assessing Officer's findings, the Pr. CIT's order under section 263 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the Bihar State Legal Services.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not considered. For the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT had not demonstrated any error or prejudice to the revenue in the original assessment order. The original assessment was a limited scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer had examined the details provided by the assessee. Since no error was found in the Assessing Officer's findings, the Pr. CIT's order under section 263 was unsustainable.
The Bench accepted the request of the assessees and allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn on technical grounds.
The Bench accepted the request of the assessees and allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn on technical grounds.
The assessee's representative informed the Tribunal that Form No. 1 and Form No. 2 related to the scheme have been filed and tax has been deposited, but Form No. 4 is still awaited from the department. Based on these submissions and a request for withdrawal, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not considered. For the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search to indicate undisclosed investment in the building. The DVO's valuation was considered an estimation and a subsequent event, not incriminating material. Therefore, the assessment orders passed u/s 153A were liable to be quashed based on the principles laid down in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) lacked jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 142(1) prior to 30.03.2022, when the faceless enquiry scheme u/s 142B was notified. It also found that NFAC had no jurisdiction to make assessment u/s 147 or issue notice u/s 142(1) prior to 29.03.2022, as the e-assessment of income escaping assessment scheme u/s 151A was notified only on that date. Since the assessment order was passed before these effective dates, it was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search to indicate undisclosed investment in the building. The DVO's valuation was considered an estimation and a subsequent event, not incriminating material. Therefore, the assessment orders passed u/s 153A were liable to be quashed based on the principles laid down in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search to indicate undisclosed investment in the building. The DVO's valuation was considered an estimation and a subsequent event, not incriminating material. Therefore, the assessment orders passed u/s 153A were liable to be quashed based on the principles laid down in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search to indicate undisclosed investment in the building. The DVO's valuation was considered an estimation and a subsequent event, not incriminating material. Therefore, the assessment orders passed u/s 153A were liable to be quashed based on the principles laid down in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the existence of the HUF was accepted in a previous appeal. The assessee claimed the funds deposited in the bank account were out of HUF income. Given that the HUF's existence is undisputed and it possesses substantial agricultural land, the deposits are considered to be from the HUF's agricultural income, which explains the investment.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search to indicate undisclosed investment in the building. The DVO's valuation was considered an estimation and a subsequent event, not incriminating material. Therefore, the assessment orders passed u/s 153A were liable to be quashed based on the principles laid down in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search to indicate undisclosed investment in the building. The DVO's valuation was considered an estimation and a subsequent event, not incriminating material. Therefore, the assessment orders passed u/s 153A were liable to be quashed based on the principles laid down in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search to indicate undisclosed investment in the building. The DVO's valuation was considered an estimation and a subsequent event, not incriminating material. Therefore, the assessment orders passed u/s 153A were liable to be quashed based on the principles laid down in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the genuine reasons of prolonged illness. The Tribunal set aside the assessment and appellate orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the application for condonation. In the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide the assessee with copies of any agreements used against them and grant an opportunity for rebuttal.