Loading ITAT cases…
155 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound to comply with the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court. Consequently, the demand under section 201(1) and 201(1A) and the penalty under section 271C were deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is part of the compensation and eligible for exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the mandatory prior approval under Section 151 was obtained after the notice was issued. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principle of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submission that due to the age of the appeal and lack of documents, it was appropriate to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the mandatory prior approval under Section 151 was obtained after the notice was issued. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on unsigned excel sheet data from a third party, without any corroborative evidence like registered deeds, payment trails, or builder's confirmation, are unsustainable. The denial of cross-examination also vitiated the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on 'dump documents' like unsigned and undated excel sheets without corroborative evidence. Such documents lack evidentiary value and cannot form the basis for assessment.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on 'dump documents' like unsigned and undated excel sheets without corroborative evidence. Such documents lack evidentiary value and cannot form the basis for assessment.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on 'dump documents' like unsigned and undated excel sheets without corroborative evidence. Such documents lack evidentiary value and cannot form the basis for assessment.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's dispute and offer to pay 15% of the disputed amount. Considering the facts and the offer, the addition was restricted to 15% of Rs. 1,60,000/-, with the balance deleted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's dispute and offer to pay 15% of the disputed amount. Considering the facts and the offer, the addition was restricted to 15% of Rs. 1,60,000/-, with the balance deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing the tax consultant's error and the need for a liberal approach. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on uncorroborated WhatsApp chats and digital data without establishing a nexus with actual investment or income. The assessee was also a non-resident, and the alleged income did not accrue or arise in India.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on 'dump documents' like unsigned and undated excel sheets without corroborative evidence. Such documents lack evidentiary value and cannot form the basis for assessment.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the lack of a manually or digitally signed approval under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The tribunal held that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Similar cases were remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Similar cases were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to reject the books of account before estimating profits and that the additions were made beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. Subsequent events, like the SARFAESI Act action, corroborated the assessee's financial distress.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's dispute and offer to pay 15% of the disputed amount. Considering the facts and the offer, the addition was restricted to 15% of Rs. 1,60,000/-, with the balance deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. The assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard or to submit additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of substantial justice, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. A cost of Rs. 3,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It held that since the addition in the quantum appeal was made on an estimated basis (10% of Rs. 8,78,000/-), penalty for concealment of income should not be levied.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was barred by limitation as the escaped income was below the threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs required for reopening after three years, as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the addition made on the basis of an unsigned excel sheet without providing an opportunity for cross-examination was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the profit element embedded in the on-money receipts should be estimated at 10%, considering the facts and previous judicial precedents. This rate was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the profit element embedded in the on-money receipts should be estimated at 10%, considering the facts and previous judicial precedents. This rate was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the profit element embedded in the on-money receipts should be estimated at 10%, considering the facts and previous judicial precedents. This rate was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the profit element embedded in the on-money receipts should be estimated at 10%, considering the facts and previous judicial precedents. This rate was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the issue requires examination on merits, especially since the assessee explained the inadvertent error and sought to file a revised return. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the claim.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid as the reasons recorded did not clearly establish the income that had escaped assessment. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the validity of the reassessment proceedings hinged on the proper service of the notice under section 148. As the assessment records were not available, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the notice's service.
The tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid because the approval for issuing the notice under section 148 was obtained from an incompetent authority, violating section 151 of the Act. Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings were without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to discharge the onus, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to appreciate that the assessee was an agriculturist and small farmer. Considering the peculiar facts and the smallness of the amount, an estimated addition of 10% of the unexplained amount was deemed sufficient.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, deeming it a violation of natural justice, and restored the matter to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law and without jurisdiction because the approval under Section 151 was not properly obtained, being undated, unsigned, and lacking a DIN number. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval under section 151 of the Act was neither digitally nor manually signed by the prescribed authority, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were recorded, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on an estimation. The penalty levied on this estimated addition was not sustainable. The Tribunal reduced the estimated addition and deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural lapse and its substantial compliance is sufficient. The AO should have considered the audit report, and since it was not properly examined, the matter was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been restored to the AO. Therefore, the penalty appeals were also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were recorded, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on an estimation. The penalty levied on this estimated addition was not sustainable. The Tribunal reduced the estimated addition and deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been restored to the AO. Therefore, the penalty appeals were also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that additions based solely on 'dumb documents' like unsigned Excel sheets and uncorroborated third-party statements, without independent corroboration or opportunity for cross-examination, are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were insufficient to reopen the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed, rendering all other issues on merits academic.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment proceedings under Section 151 was unsigned and therefore invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed written submissions but did not furnish the supporting documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to file the required documents.