Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal noted that notices were issued to the assessee by both the CIT(A) and the AO. However, the order does not clearly state whether the notices were served on the assessee. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices, leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the additions. For the low production yield, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation regarding the manufacturing process and input-output ratio to be correct. For purchases outside books, the Tribunal found the assessee's reconciliation to be satisfactory. For disallowed depreciation, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of payment through banking channels and installation of machinery.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to collect TCS as the buyer had furnished Form 27C. Consequently, the assessee was not required to file Form 27EQ, and thus, the levy of late fees under Section 234E was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that if an issue is debatable, section 143(1)(a) should not be invoked. The Tribunal further noted that cooperative societies eligible for 80P deduction should not be denied the claim if the return is filed late, provided the claim is valid. The cases were remitted to the Assessing Officer for examination.
The Tribunal held that if an issue is debatable, section 143(1)(a) should not be invoked. The Tribunal further noted that cooperative societies eligible for 80P deduction should not be denied the claim if the return is filed late, provided the claim is valid. The cases were remitted to the Assessing Officer for examination.
The Tribunal held that the investment in immovable property was made in an earlier assessment year (2010-11) and not in the year under appeal (2018-19). Therefore, no addition under section 69 could be made for the current year. The Tribunal also noted that money brought into India by a non-resident for investment is not liable to tax.
The Tribunal held that if an issue is debatable, section 143(1)(a) should not be invoked. The Tribunal further noted that cooperative societies eligible for 80P deduction should not be denied the claim if the return is filed late, provided the claim is valid. The cases were remitted to the Assessing Officer for examination.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation during assessment proceedings and the haste with which the assessment order was passed. Due to these factors and the need to properly examine the facts, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that while the reopening of assessment was valid, the assessee had now provided a reconciliation and explanation for the bank entries. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination with supporting documentary evidence.
The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. It ruled that the Assessing Officer made an addition on an issue not originally part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that such an addition, based on a different footing than the initial reasons, renders the reassessment proceedings invalid, and therefore quashed the reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the late submission of Forms 27C and 27BA, being procedural, does not necessarily make the assessee in default. However, due to the forms not being available before the appropriate authority, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a substantive addition of the same amount had already been made in the hands of the 'real owner'. Therefore, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was no longer necessary and was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the 65-day delay in filing the appeal. It confirmed that the assessee's books were correctly rejected and the gross profit was rightly estimated at 9.5% of turnover (Rs. 2,60,086/-). However, it ruled that since the assessee had already declared a gross profit of Rs. 1,76,632/-, only the differential amount of Rs. 83,454/- should be added to the total income, rather than the entire cash deposit of Rs. 23,28,800/-.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation during assessment proceedings and the haste with which the assessment order was passed. Due to these factors and the need to properly examine the facts, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation during assessment proceedings and the haste with which the assessment order was passed. Due to these factors and the need to properly examine the facts, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation during assessment proceedings and the haste with which the assessment order was passed. Due to these factors and the need to properly examine the facts, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal, relying on a precedent from ITAT Surat (Jitesh Vithalbhaia Rashiya) and CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017, held that no further verification is required for individuals without business income if the total cash deposit is up to Rs. 2.5 lakh. Since the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- fell within this exempted limit, and the assessee had provided supporting evidence without any defect, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Sections 10, 11 & 12 of the Act because its registration was effective at the time of assessment. However, due to insufficient evidence submitted by the assessee, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to examine the receipts.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's error in citing sub-clause (ii) instead of (iii) was merely typographical. Following a precedent from ITAT Ahmedabad, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s rejection order and directed the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order on the merits after the assessee files a rectified application under the correct Section 80G(5)(iii).
The Tribunal condoned the 4-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding sufficient cause due to the CA's misinformation. Considering the CIT(A)'s dismissal was also due to a delay and misunderstanding, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that while one object mentioned a specific community, the trust had numerous other objects for general public benefit, including education, medical aid, and rural development. The Tribunal also noted that the school run by the trust admitted students from all sections of society.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and taken a plausible view by taxing the excess stock as regular business income, as it pertained to the assessee's business. Therefore, the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to explain the source of the capital introduced in his business.