Loading ITAT cases…
278 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the credits and cash deposits before the lower authorities. The appeals were remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts, stating it should be limited to the provision made in the books. However, it restored the issue of investment depreciation fund to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. However, considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by holding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause. The Tribunal then remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law because it was approved by the wrong authority, as per Section 151 of the Act. It also found that the notice was issued beyond the prescribed surviving period.
The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the credits and cash deposits before the lower authorities. The appeals were remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by holding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause. The Tribunal then remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the land was a capital asset and not agricultural land, based on the sale deeds, revenue records, and the assessee's own initial offer of capital gains. Consequently, the claim for deduction under Section 54B was denied.
The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the credits and cash deposits before the lower authorities. The appeals were remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal then remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal then remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal then remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the notice u/s 148 issued on 05.04.2022 to be time-barred for AY 2015-16, as per the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) after finding a 'sufficient cause' for the delay. The Tribunal then remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal found that some fixed deposits were renewals of old deposits and directed their deletion. Cash deposits were also found to be out of withdrawals, leading to deletion of additions. However, one issue regarding cash deposits required verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not rely on the statement of Shri Anil Agrawal without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced evidence of shareholding in demat accounts and sale through stock exchanges, which could not be dismissed as bogus without contrary material.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not rely on the statement of Shri Anil Agrawal without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced evidence of shareholding in demat accounts and sale through stock exchanges, which could not be dismissed as bogus without contrary material.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the source of his share of payment of Rs. 71,98,950. The argument that the amount was adjusted from the advance made by Dream Landscape Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was not accepted, especially since the company's balance sheet did not reflect any loan or advance to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that while the company was a confirming party, this alone did not absolve the assessee from explaining the source of his payment. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the assessee had refunded the money to the company in the subsequent year. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of payment. However, since the assessee had deducted TDS of Rs. 71,991, which was not disputed, this amount could not be added under Section 69. Therefore, the Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and sustained the addition of Rs. 71,26,959, which is the total share amount less the TDS deducted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order is bad in law due to the non-service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, following precedents from the Patna and Delhi High Courts. This rendered the assessment invalid.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had overlooked crucial evidence regarding stock details and the source of funds for advances. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on these issues.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposits, which were from normal business operations. The AO had not disputed that the assessee ran a petrol pump and received the currency during the specified period.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order is bad in law due to the non-service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, following precedents from the Patna and Delhi High Courts. This rendered the assessment invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not rely on the statement of Shri Anil Agrawal without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced evidence of shareholding in demat accounts and sale through stock exchanges, which could not be dismissed as bogus without contrary material.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not rely on the statement of Shri Anil Agrawal without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced evidence of shareholding in demat accounts and sale through stock exchanges, which could not be dismissed as bogus without contrary material.
The Tribunal held that filing a revised return after a survey and acceptance of discrepancies does not negate the initial concealment of income. Following High Court precedents, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits and cannot dismiss the appeal solely for non-compliance without considering the substance. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had indeed relied on incorrect facts, as evidenced by the Income and Expenditure Account and Trust Deed. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) should be considered based on the gross receipts of each individual institute, not the aggregate receipts of all institutions. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) should be considered based on the gross receipts of each individual institute, not the aggregate receipts of all institutions. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the exemption.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). The reasoning of the lower authorities was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) should be considered based on the gross receipts of each individual institute, not the aggregate receipts of all institutions. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the exemption.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the need for substantial justice over technical considerations. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay was inordinate and the reasons provided by the assessee were vague and insufficient. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the delay.
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that a liberal approach should be adopted. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, following Supreme Court judgments emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the delay was inordinate and there was no sufficient cause demonstrated by the assessee. The reasons provided were vague, and the assessee's past conduct indicated non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's retraction letter lacked evidentiary value as it was unsigned. The addition of Rs. 3,10,46,726/- was confirmed based on incriminating documents and the assessee's signed statement. The addition under Section 43CA was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify the 10% margin.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO for trade payables, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. However, the Tribunal restored the issue of the adjustment made by the CPC for the GST refund mismatch to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee, including sale deeds and bank statements, to address a potential double addition. The case was set aside for de-novo adjudication by the CIT(A) with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine due to a procedural error in challenging the wrong order. Considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an order without waiting for the AO's remand report after admitting additional evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the sustained additions and remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that it was mandatory for the AO to provide the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee. Since this was not done, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO for trade payables, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. However, the Tribunal restored the issue of the adjustment made by the CPC for the GST refund mismatch to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's primary contention was that the final assessment order was bad in law due to non-compliance with the DRP's directions. The assessee highlighted that the AO initially passed a final assessment order on 30.09.2024 without adhering to the DRP's directions dated 27.08.2024, which had granted relief and directed the total addition to be restricted to INR 101,00,41,778. The assessee provided evidence that subsequent rectification orders under Section 154 were passed by the TPO (13.03.2025) and AO (16.07.2025) to correct the final assessment order and bring it in line with the DRP's directions. The Tribunal observed that the very need for these rectification orders indicated that the original final assessment order was not in conformity with the DRP's directions. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the final assessment order dated 30.09.2024 was indeed bad in law as it failed to follow the mandatory directions of the DRP. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order dated 30.09.2024 on this ground alone, without delving into the merits of the transfer pricing adjustment. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that Rs. 37 lakhs representing business receipts and Rs. 34 lakhs received from parties on cancellation of land purchase deeds were sufficiently explained. However, the cash gift of Rs. 2 lakhs from the father was not satisfactorily explained.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was based on the assessee's submission that identical issues in preceding years were accepted and that he could substantiate his case with requisite details.
The ITAT condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided as sufficient cause. The Tribunal restored both the quantum addition and the penalty issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was in limine due to a typographical error in filing under the wrong sub-clause. Considering Section 80G(5) as a beneficial provision, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.