Loading ITAT cases…
52 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a senior citizen and businessman with a history of filing returns for over 20 years, had substantial capital in his partnership firm and a declared cash-in-hand prior to demonetization, which the lower authorities had not duly considered. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced rate under Section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18 for transactions prior to 01.04.2017. It allowed a further sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the withdrawal of Rs. 8,75,000/- made on 09.02.2016, in addition to the Rs. 8,63,000/- allowed by the CIT(A), directing the AO to delete Rs. 12,63,000/-.
The Tribunal held that Section 92BA(i) of the Act was omitted with effect from April 1, 2017, and therefore, could not be applied retrospectively to the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Tribunal followed decisions from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and ITAT Ahmedabad which had held similar adjustments to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence like PAN, ITRs, and bank statements of lenders. The revenue failed to provide cogent material to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's inability to comply with CIT(A)'s notices was due to the death of the President who was handling the tax matters. Considering the circumstances and the assessee's undertaking to be more vigilant, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merit.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, the assessee provided evidence that notices were sent to a wrong email address, indicating a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal noted that notices were indeed sent to an email address different from the one provided in Form No. 35. It was held that the non-representation was not intentional and that the interests of justice would be served by restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal found that while the entire explanation for the deposit was not acceptable, withdrawals made prior to demonetization, totaling Rs. 9,00,000/-, and Rs. 1,47,000/- for household expenses, were considered as explained sources. The remaining addition of Rs. 9,46,500/- was upheld, and the ground regarding Section 115BBE was allowed for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the validity of reopening, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal considered that both parties agreed to a reasonable estimate and decided to estimate 20% of the total credits, directing the AO to add Rs. 1,67,716.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on an issue not forming part of the re-opening notice, especially when the original grounds for re-opening were deleted. For other appeals, it directed the AO to assess income by adopting a net profit rate of 3% of turnover.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, the assessee provided evidence that notices were sent to a wrong email address, indicating a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order concerning the quantum addition and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to present all relevant facts and documents. Consequently, the penalty under section 271AAC(1), being consequential, was deleted provisionally, with liberty granted to the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if warranted after the de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, the assessee provided evidence that notices were sent to a wrong email address, indicating a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
As the specific issues, arguments, and the reasoning of the Tribunal are not provided in the given text, it is not possible to determine what the Tribunal decided, the rationale behind its decisions, or the operative directions issued. The judgment excerpt does not contain any findings on any specific issues, nor does it mention any ratio decidendi that could be cited. Consequently, no relief granted or issues left undecided can be identified.
At the outset of the hearing, the assessee's counsel stated that as per his client's instructions, he wished to withdraw the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO, dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of non-compliance. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and violative of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates a reasoned order.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, finding them to be neither deliberate nor intentional, and prioritizing substantial justice. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not effectively pursue its case before the CIT(E) due to a failure to provide necessary documentary evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back for de novo consideration, directing the CIT(E) to grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that the CIT(E)'s order was passed ex parte and violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in filing the entry (incorrect section code) was not fatal and was an inadvertent mistake. The assessee was not given an opportunity to explain or cure the defect by the CIT(E). The Tribunal accepted the plea for correction and set aside the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not considered complete details and had not given the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the reasons provided constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing that adequate opportunity be given to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that the CIT(E)'s order was passed ex parte and violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in filing the entry (incorrect section code) was not fatal and was an inadvertent mistake. The assessee was not given an opportunity to explain or cure the defect by the CIT(E). The Tribunal accepted the plea for correction and set aside the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, finding them to be neither deliberate nor intentional, and prioritizing substantial justice. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not effectively pursue its case before the CIT(E) due to a failure to provide necessary documentary evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back for de novo consideration, directing the CIT(E) to grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without providing an opportunity to rebut the remand report submitted by the AO, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted a similar past order where an appeal was set aside. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the reasons provided constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing that adequate opportunity be given to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that a previous order of the CIT(E) rejecting the Section 12A application had been set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication. Given this, and with no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal set aside the current order of the CIT(E) and restored it for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not allowing the assessee to rebut the AO's remand report and by not considering the difficulties faced due to seized records. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that income from land sales should be taxed as 'Profits and gains of business or profession' under Section 28, not capital gains, as the assessee was regularly dealing in land. It also found a clear violation of natural justice by the CIT(A) for not providing the assessee an opportunity to file a rejoinder to the AO's remand report. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal found a clear violation of natural justice, noting that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee a copy of the remand report for rejoinder and an adequate opportunity of hearing, especially given her records were seized. It also observed that the assessee was regularly engaged in the business of land dealing and running a petrol pump, suggesting the income from land sales should be treated as business income. Consequently, all appeals were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication, with directions to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance and violation of natural justice. Although the assessee was negligent, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give another opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not allowing the assessee to respond to the AO's remand report. It observed that the assessee was regularly engaged in land dealing, indicating that profit from land sales should be treated as 'Profits and gains of business or profession' under section 28, rather than capital gains. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for all assessment years and remitted the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal, following decisions of the Gujarat High Court and ITAT, held that while the purchases might be bogus or accommodation entries, the disallowance should be restricted to 6% of the impugned purchases, not the full amount. The assessee's reliance on various case laws and the fact that similar additions were restricted to 6% in other cases involving the same groups were noted.
The Tribunal held that the difference of Rs. 3,00,000 between the sale consideration and the DVO's valuation of Rs. 72,00,000 is within the 10% tolerance band. Following previous ITAT decisions, the addition made by the AO was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the plea of foreign remittances was raised for the first time before the CIT(A) and not before the AO. It was also observed that it was unclear whether Shri Tejas Mehta was a non-resident at the time of the transaction. The CIT(A) had not obtained a remand report from the AO regarding the additional evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is independent of the existence of rural branches and is available to eligible banks. Regarding Section 36(1)(viii), the assessee fulfilled all four conditions for claiming the deduction for creating a special reserve for long-term finance.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had conducted inquiries and taken a plausible view. The PCIT's disagreement with the AO's assessment did not automatically render the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not present its case before the CIT(E) due to not receiving notices and consequently not filing documents. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed an order based on available materials. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.