Loading ITAT cases…
208 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the payments, although made on a single day to a truck number, were for separate transactions and not for a single transaction exceeding Rs. 35,000/-. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 40A(3).
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, directed the Department not to press appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60.00 lakh. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the addition was made on new reasons without issuing a fresh notice under Section 148, following the judgment in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. The order of the lower appellate authority was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the time allowed for compliance was unreasonable and that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The assessee's counsel filed an application seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue's representative had no objection to this request. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which was deemed to be crucial for deciding the issue. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her onus of explaining the source of cash deposits by providing evidence like a Gram Panchayat certificate and customer confirmations. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence that the deposits were collected after the demonetization date. Following previous ITAT Pune decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2013-14, the addition of Rs. 1,72,91,800/- was restricted to Rs. 1,44,88,530/- by applying a rate of 70% on the assessee's share of turnover, aligning with the treatment given to Shri Jayant G. Patil, who had settled his case with the Settlement Commission at this rate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that both partners should receive the same treatment. The addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of disallowed expenses was deleted as the CIT(A) had already granted relief in this regard. For AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the unaccounted income by applying the 70% rate on the assessee's share of turnover, consistent with Shri Jayant G. Patil's case. The CIT(A) had calculated the unaccounted income for AY 2014-15 at Rs. 1,44,88,530/- and for AY 2015-16 at Rs. 80,32,430/-.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which was deemed to be crucial for deciding the issue. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution without deciding the issues on merit, violating Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was set aside, the penalty order had no basis to stand. Therefore, the penalty order was also set aside for de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution without deciding the issues on merit, violating Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2013-14, the addition of Rs. 1,72,91,800/- was restricted to Rs. 1,44,88,530/- by applying a rate of 70% on the assessee's share of turnover, aligning with the treatment given to Shri Jayant G. Patil, who had settled his case with the Settlement Commission at this rate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that both partners should receive the same treatment. The addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of disallowed expenses was deleted as the CIT(A) had already granted relief in this regard. For AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the unaccounted income by applying the 70% rate on the assessee's share of turnover, consistent with Shri Jayant G. Patil's case. The CIT(A) had calculated the unaccounted income for AY 2014-15 at Rs. 1,44,88,530/- and for AY 2015-16 at Rs. 80,32,430/-.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution without deciding the issues on merit, violating Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2013-14, the addition of Rs. 1,72,91,800/- was restricted to Rs. 1,44,88,530/- by applying a rate of 70% on the assessee's share of turnover, aligning with the treatment given to Shri Jayant G. Patil, who had settled his case with the Settlement Commission at this rate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that both partners should receive the same treatment. The addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of disallowed expenses was deleted as the CIT(A) had already granted relief in this regard. For AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the unaccounted income by applying the 70% rate on the assessee's share of turnover, consistent with Shri Jayant G. Patil's case. The CIT(A) had calculated the unaccounted income for AY 2014-15 at Rs. 1,44,88,530/- and for AY 2015-16 at Rs. 80,32,430/-.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be sketchy and non-speaking, failing to address the specific issue of LLP due dates and the applicability of audit requirements. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution without deciding the issues on merit, violating Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution without deciding the issues on merit, violating Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2013-14, the addition of Rs. 1,72,91,800/- was restricted to Rs. 1,44,88,530/- by applying a rate of 70% on the assessee's share of turnover, aligning with the treatment given to Shri Jayant G. Patil, who had settled his case with the Settlement Commission at this rate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that both partners should receive the same treatment. The addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of disallowed expenses was deleted as the CIT(A) had already granted relief in this regard. For AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the unaccounted income by applying the 70% rate on the assessee's share of turnover, consistent with Shri Jayant G. Patil's case. The CIT(A) had calculated the unaccounted income for AY 2014-15 at Rs. 1,44,88,530/- and for AY 2015-16 at Rs. 80,32,430/-.
The Tribunal held that SBNs were legal tender until December 31, 2016, as per the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not valid.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution without deciding the issues on merit, violating Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption). The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate its case by filing requisite details.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to verify the assessee's claims regarding bank deposit discrepancies and cash withdrawals. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory requirement of section 250(6) by not deciding the appeal on merit. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate and substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed written submissions before the CIT(A)/NFAC, which were not considered. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT (Exemption) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details. The CIT (Exemption) is to decide the matter afresh after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's NRI status and communication challenges. The ex-parte orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the proceedings under Section 263 were previously quashed by the Tribunal, the subsequent assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer became infructuous. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was indeed a duplicate of a previously adjudicated matter. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments made out of its business income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The assessment order was found to have a valid DIN number.
The ITAT held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of the assessment order and reasons for reopening. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based solely on a technical ground (wrong code) and not on merits. Following a coordinate bench's decision and a CBDT circular, the Tribunal decided that the error was curable.
The Tribunal found that the time granted to the appellant for compliance was unreasonable and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. Both appeals were remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application filed by the assessee. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to provide the necessary evidence to satisfy the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal held that losses from commodity derivatives trading are not speculative losses as per Section 43(5)(e) and can be set off against other business income. The Tribunal allowed the commodity trading loss but restricted other business expenditure.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to provide the necessary evidence to satisfy the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication. The appellant was granted one more opportunity to prove its case on merits.