Loading ITAT cases…
278 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) based on the 'reasonable cause' presented. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits, the matters were restored for fresh consideration.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits, the ITAT restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for non-compliance due to incorrect email service and the non-provision of reasons for reopening. The case was set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication with a direction to provide the reasons.
The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground regarding the validity of reopening due to improper sanction. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the issue of the nature of receipt (capital vs. revenue) was decided in favour of the assessee in a related appeal. For the disallowance of commission, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, which included details of members and deposits. It set aside the AO's order for de-novo adjudication to consider these evidences.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the Rs. 6 crore receipt, following its decision in a related appeal. For the commission disallowance, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on its merits and does not have the power to dismiss it for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground regarding the validity of reopening due to improper sanction. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue authorities had not appreciated the facts properly and that the assessee might be able to substantiate his case with further details. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
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 reassessment proceedings were initiated on a time-barred notice under Section 148. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings as invalid.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is paramount and a pragmatic approach should be taken for condoning delay. The Tribunal was convinced that there was sufficient cause for the delay due to the personal tragedy.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the penalty issue to the Assessing Officer as the underlying additions were already remanded for fresh adjudication. For the additions under Section 68, the Tribunal also restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the receipts as sale proceeds.
The Tribunal restored the penalty issue to the Assessing Officer as the underlying additions were already remanded for fresh adjudication. For the additions under Section 68, the Tribunal also restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the receipts as sale proceeds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must adjudicate the legal ground raised by the assessee concerning the validity of the notice u/s 148. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for this purpose, with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148 and passing an assessment order in the name of a deceased person is void ab initio. Such defects cannot be cured by Section 292B or 292BB of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the estimated business income addition of 10% was high given the nature of the retail liquor business and declining profit margins. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the estimated income to 7% of turnover.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the issue back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present evidence and cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence, emphasizing principles of natural justice.
The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits, emphasizing a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condonation applications. Substantial justice was considered paramount.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause, considering the assessee's age and the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issue was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the penalty issue to the Assessing Officer as the underlying additions were already remanded for fresh adjudication. For the additions under Section 68, the Tribunal also restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the receipts as sale proceeds.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the need for substantial justice and a liberal approach. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on April 2, 2022, is bad in law. This decision is based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court and subsequent High Court judgments.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, noting that non-compliance might have valid reasons. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence and arguments before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that capital expenditure incurred on scientific research related to the business, even if paid to third parties for testing and clinical trials, is eligible for deduction under Section 35(1)(iv). The 'without prejudice' submission made by the assessee was not an admission of disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand report of the AO and the assessee's rejoinder to it. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently caused by the assessee pursuing rectification and the COVID-19 pandemic. It also noted that the assessee had filed Form 10BB within the due time, and taxing the entire receipts without considering expenditures was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that a recent amendment by the Finance Act, 2024, allows applications to be filed at any time after the commencement of activities. Therefore, the rejection based on the previous time limit was set aside.
The Tribunal, following Supreme Court judgments, held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issue was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the husband had sufficient disclosed income to make the gifts. Since the husband's income was explained and the gift was accepted, making additions in the hands of the wife was deemed unjustified, leading to the deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was bad in law because the approval for its issuance was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, as required for reassessment proceedings initiated after three years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty were also quashed.
The Tribunal found that the husband had sufficient disclosed income to make the gifts. Since the husband's income was explained and the gift was accepted, making additions in the hands of the wife was deemed unjustified, leading to the deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was bad in law because the approval for its issuance was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, as required for reassessment proceedings initiated after three years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty were also quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was following the percentage completion method and the final payment for the lifts was made in the relevant financial year, the expenses should be included as project cost and not disallowed as prior period expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had maintained proper books of accounts, stock registers, and paid VAT on sales. The AO had accepted purchases and closing stock but rejected sales, leading to an absurd loss. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that PAN was not required for individual transactions below Rs. 2 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases amounting to Rs. 16,53,88,121/-. Therefore, an addition of 25% of this amount was sustained as deemed profit.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide satisfactory documentary evidence for the cash deposits, the peak credit theory was not entirely applicable. However, considering the nature of the assessee's business, some relief was granted.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) as the alleged escapement of income was below Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had not properly verified the information before issuing the notice.
The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer has limitations in entertaining new claims without a revised return, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's powers are not impinged. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of receipts and grant relief.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence. The applications were to be considered de novo by the CIT.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for adjudication. The assessee is to be provided with an adequate opportunity to present evidence and information to substantiate their case.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence. The applications were to be considered de novo by the CIT.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee to clarify the error. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for de-novo adjudication.