Loading ITAT cases…
105 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 88 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's and her husband's senior citizen status and serious medical conditions. On merits, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not considered the materials submitted by the assessee regarding the cost of acquisition and indexation. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed ex parte without proper opportunity to the assessee. It also found that the CIT(A) did not verify the service of the assessment order and dismissed the appeal without issuing a show cause notice. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal acknowledged that technical considerations should not stand against substantial justice. While the assessee was found to be slightly negligent, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned subject to the payment of costs. The matter was then restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the cost of acquisition and had added the entire deemed value. The CIT(A) had also not accepted the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the cost of acquisition, the fair market value as of 01.04.1981, and the claim for exemption under section 54F.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 17 days, finding it not inordinate or intentional. However, since both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to lack of proper explanation/evidence from the assessee, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) as it was not considered. Recognizing that the additional ground required verification of facts, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry and to provide appropriate relief.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and documentary evidence. It was noted that a home loan of Rs. 44,01,180/- was part of the credits. After reducing this amount and considering other potential adjustments like bank interest and cash-in-hand, the addition was significantly reduced. The Tribunal estimated the business income at 10% and restricted the additions to Rs. 2,00,000/-.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) passed the order in the absence of proper explanation from the assessee, as the assessee had sought an adjournment. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions that mentioning a wrong sub-clause is not fatal and that the objects of the trust should be considered as a whole.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. Given that the assessee had opted for and paid tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, and the Revenue had no objection, the Tribunal found it appropriate to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions in similar cases, held that the LTCG was genuine and deleted the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 2 days in filing the appeal. Considering the submissions of both parties and the fact that the assessee claimed to have deposited due taxes and submitted relevant forms under the IDS, 2016, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition in an ex parte order despite the assessee being given multiple opportunities. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's reliance on a High Court decision where a similar addition was deleted for AY 2011-12. However, the Revenue argued that the facts for the current year were different as the assessee admitted to providing accommodation entries.
The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the materials. Since the assessee opted for the VSVS scheme and intended to withdraw the appeal, and the revenue had no objection, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the total rent of Rs. 17,20,000 was paid by M/s. Ashish Publicity for FY 2015-16 and 2016-17, corresponding to AY 2016-17 (Rs. 8,00,000) and AY 2017-18 (Rs. 9,20,000). The assessee claimed these amounts were offered in the respective assessment years. The Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the matter to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim that Rs. 8,00,000 was offered in AY 2016-17. If confirmed, the AO was directed to reduce the rental income from AY 2017-18. The Tribunal also referenced Rule 37BA(3) of the IT Rules, 1962, regarding the assessment year for which TDS credit is given, and directed the AO to withdraw the TDS credit claimed on the total rent of Rs. 17,20,000 in the current AY after verification. The assessee was directed to furnish supporting details. For statistical purposes, the appeal was treated as allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and guidelines issued by the CBDT for handling such cases. Consequently, the matter was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh verification of evidence as per the SOP.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and guidelines issued by the CBDT for handling such cases. Consequently, the matter was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh verification of evidence as per the SOP.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear on multiple hearing dates and did not file any submissions. The assessee also failed to provide any material to support their grounds of appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the addition confirmed by the AO and CIT(A).
The Tribunal considered the request to withdraw the appeal under the VSVS Scheme, 2024. Both parties were heard, and the materials were perused. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 56 days in filing, finding insufficient cause. The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000/-. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard, and their substantial rights were involved. Therefore, the grounds of appeal were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if properties are part of stock-in-trade for a real estate business, any income arising from them, including notional rental income, should be assessed as business income and not as income from house property. The AO's action of taxing unsold stock as house property was not justified.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. Since the assessee has successfully applied under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and paid the tax, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. Since the assessee has successfully applied under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and paid the tax, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application as the assessee failed to establish that its activities, specifically organizing cricket tournaments, were genuine and in consonance with the stated objects of the trust. The Tribunal found that the activities were not aligned with the trust's aims and objectives as per its MoA and AoA.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. Since the assessee has successfully applied under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and paid the tax, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. Since the assessee has successfully applied under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and paid the tax, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice on 26.12.2019 and passed the assessment order on 28.12.2019, leaving little time for the assessee to respond. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in a non-speaking order, without properly considering the assessee's submissions or allowing further opportunities. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was not in consonance with Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's status as a senior citizen and housewife, and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, condoned the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to condone the 71-day delay in filing the appeal before him, subject to a cost.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, which demonstrated the repayment of unsecured loans through banking channels, finding them essential for a complete adjudication. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer with directions to verify these facts and pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders and did not adequately consider the assessee's submissions and grounds of appeal. The manner of addition by the AO was also found to be not justifiable. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the assessee's response or the merits of the case.
The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the gift from HUF. However, considering the ex parte order by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee's argument about subsequent favorable judicial pronouncements and lack of proper opportunity, the Tribunal decided to allow one more opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's explanation and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's exclusion period due to the pandemic. Since both the AO and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was non-compliant, the principles of natural justice warrant giving another opportunity. The expression "sufficient cause" is elastic and in cases where substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations, substantial justice should be preferred.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 25 days, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's lack of awareness and the consultant's oversight in updating the email address. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment, subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000/-. The penalty appeal was also quashed as a consequence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 25 days, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's lack of awareness and the consultant's oversight in updating the email address. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment, subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000/-. The penalty appeal was also quashed as a consequence.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex parte orders due to alleged non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had made partial compliance, but these details were not considered by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to his file for reconsideration of the delay condonation.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's finding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, given the assessee's admission regarding the donation withdrawal and late payment addition. However, the Tribunal found the PCIT's direction to disallow Rs. 25,00,000 for Section 80G deduction incorrect, as the eligible deduction was Rs. 5,86,000, not Rs. 12,68,250.
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,10,00,000/- for unexplained investment as the assessee did not prove the source of funds. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal also found that the assessee did not respond to notices or provide any submissions, and therefore, dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal found that there was no inordinate or intentional delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that the assessment was completed under Section 144 without proper verification. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment order, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation, forming a reasonable and legally sustainable view. The PCIT's action under section 263 was not justified, as it was based on a differing opinion rather than a lack of proper inquiry by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Tribunal decisions supporting the view that if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view after due inquiry, the PCIT cannot substitute it with his own opinion under section 263.
The Tribunal held that merely making an unsustainable claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when all facts are disclosed. The issue was debatable and thus no penalty could be levied.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) decided the matters ex parte without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessees, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) decided the matters ex parte without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessees, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) decided the matters ex parte without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessees, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) decided the matters ex parte without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessees, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed returns, had not appeared for re-assessment proceedings, and did not contest the revisional proceedings or the appeal. Given the lack of response and submitted details from the assessee, the Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the Ld. PCIT's order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the PCIT rightly invoked section 263 as the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, the matter was set aside for further inquiry by the PCIT regarding the purchase cost and payment dates.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) decided the matters ex parte without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessees, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.