Loading ITAT cases…
47 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the capital gains from the property transfer were taxable in the assessment year relevant to the previous year of execution of the deed, not its registration. The CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to reopen the assessment for AY 2008-09.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the correctness of the DVO's report on merits and in not providing an opportunity to the assessee to challenge it. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the correctness of the DVO's report on merits and in not providing an opportunity to the assessee to challenge it. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the correctness of the DVO's report on merits and in not providing an opportunity to the assessee to challenge it. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the correctness of the DVO's report on merits and in not providing an opportunity to the assessee to challenge it. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the correctness of the DVO's report on merits and in not providing an opportunity to the assessee to challenge it. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the correctness of the DVO's report on merits and in not providing an opportunity to the assessee to challenge it. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors, and the lower authorities had conducted proper inquiries. The assessee also failed to provide evidence despite multiple opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 55A(a) were not applicable to the assessment year 2012-13 as the transaction occurred before the amendment's effective date. Furthermore, even under the erstwhile provisions, the Assessing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to refer the matter to the valuation officer.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to make a reference to the DVO under Section 55A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the transaction of land transfer occurred in the financial year 2011-12, prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) with effect from July 1, 2012. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gaurangiben S. Shodhan and the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Pooja Prints, as well as a coordinate bench decision in Jignesh Kumar N. Modi (HUF). The Tribunal found that the AO's action was not in accordance with the law as it stood at the time of the transaction. Therefore, the additions made based on the DVO's report were deleted. The appeal was allowed on this ground. Regarding the penalty appeal (ITA No. 589/Srt/2018), the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that she was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being out of India and not receiving notices. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not passed an order as per the mandate of Section 250(6). Thus, the appeal was restored to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication, including the admitted additional legal ground. This appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to make a reference to the DVO under Section 55A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the transaction of land transfer occurred in the financial year 2011-12, prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) with effect from July 1, 2012. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gaurangiben S. Shodhan and the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Pooja Prints, as well as a coordinate bench decision in Jignesh Kumar N. Modi (HUF). The Tribunal found that the AO's action was not in accordance with the law as it stood at the time of the transaction. Therefore, the additions made based on the DVO's report were deleted. The appeal was allowed on this ground. Regarding the penalty appeal (ITA No. 589/Srt/2018), the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that she was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being out of India and not receiving notices. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not passed an order as per the mandate of Section 250(6). Thus, the appeal was restored to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication, including the admitted additional legal ground. This appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition should be determined based on the valuation report and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition should be determined based on the valuation report and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of the assessee and allowed them to withdraw their appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to revive it if the assessee fails to pay the due tax as per the VSV-20 mandates.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that only the profit element embedded in such transactions is liable to be disallowed, not the entire purchase amount. The AO had not independently investigated and had not rejected the assessee's books of accounts or doubted the sales.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent evidence to disprove the genuineness of the transactions and the documents filed by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were used against them.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the valuation of the property as of 01/04/1981. The AO was instructed to consider the valuation report from the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and re-calculate the Long Term Capital Gain accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as it had borne all project costs, controlled the development, and fulfilled other conditions, even though the land title was not in its name. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the assessee by the Gujarat High Court decision, but since an SLP was admitted by the Supreme Court, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide as per the outcome of the SLP.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent evidence to disprove the genuineness of the transactions and the documents filed by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were used against them.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent evidence to disprove the genuineness of the transactions and the documents filed by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were used against them.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on a technicality without considering the merits. It also noted that a Rule cannot override a statutory provision. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had prayed for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the statement recorded during the survey lacked evidentiary value and that the addition should be restricted to the profit component of unaccounted receipts, as per established legal principles.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute and received Form-3. The Revenue's representative accepted this and requested to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute and received Form-3. The Revenue's representative accepted this and requested to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the assessee's evidence and the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the gross profit.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had prayed for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.